1 \ V » "I "i ! 1 



i_/w \ 






of God * 



r,m 



aaia 



. 



.SAHC7BJ 



on c 



-IS J. HALL 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

v 1 

....... ©opijri$t f o... 

Shelf ...M 



______ 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



v 

V 



THEOLOGICAL OUTLINES 



VOLUME I 



THE DOCTRINE OF GOD 



/ 

BY THE / 

Rev. Francis J. Hall, M. A. 

Instructor of Theology 

in THE 
Western Theological Seminary, 

Chicago, Illinois. 



NOV l& 1892 



V0^eff7 



MILWAUKEE, WIS.: 

THE YOUNG CHURCHMAN CO. 

1892. 




Copyright. 
THE YOUNG CHURCHMAN CO. 

1892. 





^J 



LIST OF CHAPTERS. 



PAGE. 

Chapter I.— The Science of Theology. . . 13 

II. — The Dogmatic office of the Church. 26 

III. — Holy Scripture 36 

IV. — Theism 45 

V. — Revelation 66 

VI. — Anti-theistic Theories. . . .71 

VII. — The Divine Nature. ... 78 

VIII.— The Divine Attributes. ... 97 

IX. — The Moral Attributes. . . 107 

X.— The Trinity 117 

XI. —The Divine Economies. . . 136 



TO THE 

RT. REV. WM. E. McLAREN, D.D., D.C.L. 

Bishop of Chicago, 

to whom the author is more 

indebted than he is 

able to express, 

this book is respectfully 

dedicated. 



PREFACE 



This volume is intended to be the first of a series of 
text books, written from the Anglo-Catholic stand point, 
and covering the field of Positive Dogmatics and Polemics. 
If this intention is carried out, the following subjects will 
be treated of in the series: In Positive Dogmatics. — the 
Science of Theology, the Dogmatic Office of the Church. 
Holy Scripture. Theism, Anti-Theistic Theories, Theology 
Proper, Creation, Angelology, Anthropology. Christology, 
Pneumatoloijy. Ecclesiology, and Eschatology: In Pol- 
emics, — Anglicanism and the Thirty Nine Articles, the 
Roman Controversy, the Protestant Controversy, and 
Church Unity. It is intended to issue one volume each 
year until the series is completed. There may be four 
Tolumes. The writer does not know of any similar work 
suitably adapted to fulfil the end in view. 

The catechetical method has been adopted because it is 
the most lucid one, where the statements are so condensed; 
and condensation is necessary for a theological text book. 

It is impossible to enter into lengthy arguments or dis- 
cussions in such Outlines as these, but references will ac- 
company each important question, so that any student who 
desires to do so can examine further. These references 
will, in a majority of instances, be found to establish the 
position assumed by the writer; but the principle of their 



6 Preface. 

selection is to open the way for further study of the ques- 
tions with which they are given. 

The writer will be thankful for any friendly criticisms. 
He can hardly expect to avoid all mistakes, and his work 
will, no doubt, have many imperfections. It is his desire 
to conform, in all respects, to ihe Catholic Faith; — that 
Faith which was "once for all delivered to the saints," 
and which is " taught in the Holy Scriptures, summed up 
in the Creeds, and affirmed by the undisputed General 
Councils ; ' By that standard he would have his statements 
criticised and, when necessary, corrected. 

The writer begs leave to acknowledge the kind assist- 
ance of the Rev. Wm. J. Gold, S. T. D., and Mr. Thos. J. 
Curran, for which he feels under much obligation; also the 
generosity of those friends whose subscriptions have en- 
couraged him to publish this volume. 

Almighty God, Who hast built Thy Church upon the 
foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ 
Himself being the Head Cornerstone; Grant us so to be 
joined together in unity of spirit by their doctrine, that we 
may be made an Holy Temple acceptable unto Thee; 
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. 



INDEX OF AUTHORS 



Anselm, St.: Proslogium, Migne's Patrol. T. 158. 

Athanasian, Creed: English Prayer Book. 

Augustine, St. : Confessions, transl. in ShafE 's Sel. Ly. of 

Nicene and Post-Nic. Fathers Vol. I, 1886. 
Augustine St.: on the Trinity, transl. in the above series 

Vol. Ill, 1887. 
Barry, Alfred: Boyle Lectures for 1876, S. P. C. K. 
Basil, St. : On the Holy Spirit, transl. in Christian Clas- 
sics, Vol. IV, Relig. Tract Soc. 
Blackie, Jno. S.: Natural History of Atheism, N. Y.. 

1878. 
Blenkinsopp, E. L. : The Doc. of Development in the Bible 

and in the Church, London, 1869. 
Blunt, John H. : Die. of Sects, Heres.. Eccles. Parties and 

Schools, London, 1874. 
Blunt, John H. : Die. of Doctrinal and Historical Theol. 

2nd. ed. London, 1872. 
Bowen, Francis: Modern Philosophy, N. Y. 5th edit. 1885. 
Browne, Edw. H.: Expos, of the 39 Arts. Edit, by Bp. 

Williams, N. Y., 1881. 
Bull, Geo.: Defence of the Nicene Creed, Ang. Cath. Ly.. 

Oxford, 1852. 
Bushnell, Horace: Nature and the Supernatural , N. Y.. 

1887. 



8 Index of Authors. 

Butler, Jos.: Analogy of Religion, Bonn's edit., London, 

1882. 
Calderwood, Hy. : Handbook of Moral Philos., 6th edit., 

London, 1879. 
Chalmers, Thos. : Works of, 2 Vols. Glasgow, 1835. 
Cnristlieb, Theodore: Modern Doubt and Christian Belief, 

transl. N. Y. 
Clement of Alexandria: Stromata, transl. in Ante-Nicene 

Fathers, Yol. II, Buffalo, 1885. 
Didon, H.: Science without God, transl. by Rosa Corder, 

N. Y., 1883. 
Dix, Morgan: The AutWty of the Church, N. Y., 1891. 
Dorner, J. A.: System of Christian Doctrine, trans, by 

Cave and Banks, 4 Yols. Edinburg, 1880. 
Emergency Tracts, Milwaukee, 1891, 1892. 
Ewer, F. C. : The Operation of the Holy Spirit, N. Y., 

1880. 
Farrar, A. S.: Crit. Hist, of Free Thought, N. Y., 1883. 
Fisher, Geo. P. : Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief, 

N. Y., 1883. 
Fisher, Geo. P. : Manual of Christian Evidence, N. Y. 

1888. 
Fleming, Wm. : Vocabulary of Philosophy , 4th ed. by 

Calderwood, N.Y., 1887. 
Flint, Rob.: Anti-Theistic Theories, 4th edit. Edinburg, 

1889. 
Flint, Rob.: Theism, 7th edit., Edinburg, 1890. 
Forbes, Alex. P. : Short Explan. of the Nicene Creed, 3rd. 

Edit. Oxford, 1881. 
Garbett, Ewd. : The Dogmatic Faith, new Edit. London, 

1879. 
Gladstone, Wm. E. : Church Principles, London, 1840. 



Index of Authors. 9 

Gore, Chas.: Incarnation of the Son of God, Bamp. Lee, 
1891, N. T.,1891. 

Gore, Chas.: Holy Spirit and Inspiration, 8th paper of 
Lux Mundi, 6th Edit. N. Y. 1890. 

Gore, Chas.: Roman Cath. Claims, 2nd Edit. London, 
1889. 

Hodge, A. A. : Outlines of Theology, rewritten and en- 
larged, N. Y. 1890. 

Hodge, Chas.: Systematic Theology, 3 vols. N. Y. 1885. 

Hooker, Rich. : Works of, 2 vols. Oxford, 1845. 

Iverach, J.: Is God Knowable? Theol. Ly., London, 

1884. 
Jackson, Thos. : Works of, new Edit, in 12 Vols. Oxford, 

1844. 
Jones, Wm.: Cath. Doctrine of the Trinity, Proved from 

H. S., 8th Edit. London, 1812. 
Kingdon, H. T.: God Incarnate, Paddock Lee. 1890, N. 

Y. 1890. 
Lee, Wm. : Inspiration of Scripture, 5th Edit. London, 

1882. 
Liddon. H. P.: The Divinity of oar Lord, etc., Bamp. 

Lee. 1866, 9th Edit, London, 1882. 
Liddon, H. P.: Some Elements of Religion, 6th and 

cheaper Edit. London, 1889. 
Liddon, H. P.: Sermons Preached before the Univ. of 

Oxford, new and cheaper Edit. London, 1891. 
Lightfoot, J. B.: The Apostolic Fathers, Part II, 2nd 

Edit. 3 Vols. London, 1889. 
Luckock, H. M. : After Death, 8th Edit. N. Y. 1890. 
Lux Mundi: 6th Edit. N. Y. 1890. 
MacColl, M.: Chrisfy in Re/, to Science and Morals. Lee. 

on the Creed, 3rd Edit. N. Y. 1890. 



10 Index of Authobs. 

Martensen, H.: Christian Dogmatics, trans, by Urwick, 

Edinburg. 
Mason, A. J. : The Faith of the Gospel, N. Y. 1888. 
McLaren, Wm. E.: Cath. Dogma the Antidote of Doubt, 

N. Y. 1883. 
McLaren, Wm. E. : The Liner Proofs of God, N. Y. 1884. 
Moberly, R. C: The Incarnation as the Basis of Dogma, 

6th. paper in Lux Mundi, 6th Edit. N. Y. 1890. 
Moore, A. : Science and the Faith, 3rd Edit. London 1892. 
Mozley, J. B.: Miracles, Bamp. Lee. 1865, 5th Edit. N. 

Y. 1883. 
Mozley, J. B.: Theory of Development, N. Y. 1879. 
Mozley, J. B.: Essays Historical and Theological, 2 Vols. 

London, 1878. 
Mozley, J. B.: Lectures and other Theological Papers, 

N. Y. 1883. 
Mozley, J. B.: On Predestination, 2nd Edit. N. Y. 1878. 
Mozley, J. B. : Ruling Ideas in Early Ages, 2nd Edit. N. 

Y. 1883. 
Mulford, Elisha: The Republic of God, 11th Edit. Boston 

1887. 
Newman, J. H. : Avians of the 4th Century, 4th Edit. 

London, 1876. 
Newman, J. H.: Idea of a University, London, 1873. 
Newman, J. H.: Tracts Theological and Eccles. 7 2nd 

Edit. London. 
Norris, J. P.: Rudiments of Theology, N. Y. 1876. 
Owen, Rob: A Treatise of Dogmatic Theology, 2nd Edit. 

London 1887. 
Paley, Wm. : Natural Theology, Hallowell 1819. 
Palmer, Wm.: The Doctrine of Development and Con- 
science, London, 1846. 



Index of Authors. 11 

Palmer, Wm. : A Treatise on the Church of Christ, 2 vols. 

2nd Edit. London, 1839. 
Pearson, John : Expos, of the Creed, revised by Burton, 

6th Edit. Oxford, 1877. 
Pearson, John: Lectiones Be Deo et Attributes, in Vol. I of 

his Minor Works, col. by Churton 2 vols. Oxford 1844. 
Perrone, Joannes S. J.: Praelectiones Theologicae, 9 vols, 

Lovanii, 1838. 
Petavii Dionysii. S. J.: Opus cle Theologicis Dogmatibus, 

Venetiis, 1757. 
Porter, Noah: Agnosticism a Doctrine of Despair, 8th 

paper of Present Day Tracts. Vol. 2. Relig. Tract 

Soc. 1883. 
Pusey, E. B.: Responsibility of the Intellect in Matters of 

Faith, London, 1872. 
Pusey, E. B.: The Rule of Faith, new Edit. 1879. 
Pusey, E. B.: On the Clause "And the Son," Oxford 1876. 
Richey, Thos.: Truth and Counter Truth, N. Y. 1869. 
Richey, Thos.: What is the Bible etc., N. Y. 1883. 
Salmon, Geo.: The Infallibility of the Church, 2nd Edit. 

London, 1890. 
Schouppe, Francisci Xav. S. J.: Elementa Theologicae 

Dogmaticae, 2 vols. 18th Edit., Paris. 
Seminarian 1886, West'n. Theol. Semy. Chicago, 1886. 
Stanton, Y. H.: The Place of Authority in Matters of 

Religious Belief, London, 1891. 
Strong, Aug. H.: Systematic- Theology, 2nd Edit, en- 
larged, N. Y. 1889. 
Suarez, R. P. Fr., S. J.: Summa, seu Compendium, Mig- 

ne's Edit. 2 vols. Paris 1877. 
Temple, Fred'k.: The Relations between Religion and. 

Science, Bamp. Lee. 1884, N. Y. 1884. 



12 Index of Authors. 

Tertullian: The Prescription Against Heretics, trans, in 
Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. III. Buffalo 1885. 

Thomae, Aquinatis, S.: Siimma Theologica, 9 vols. Paris, 
1868. 

Tracts for the Times, by members of the Univ. of Oxford 
6 vols. 1834 et seq. 

Tullock, John: Modern Theories in Philos. and Religion, 
Edinburg, 1884. 

Vincentii, Lirinensis S.: Commonitorium, in No. 9 of 
Sanctorum Patrum Opuscula Selecta; Hurter, Paris 
1880 partly trans, in Records of the Church XXIV, 
XXV, Tracts for the Times Vol. II. 

Waterland, Dan: Works of, 6 vols. Oxford 1843. 

Westcott, Brooke Foss: Introd. to the Study of the Go&jiels 
N.J. 1882. 

Westcott, Brooke Foss: Revelation of the Risen Lord, 3rd 
Edit, London, 1884. 

Westminster Catechism, in the Constitution ofthePresb. 
Church, U. S. A., Phila. 

Wilberforce, Archd.: The Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist^ 
N. Y. 1885. 

Wordsworth, Chr.: On the Inspiration of the Bible, Lon- 
don 1874. 



PART I -INTRODUCTION 



CHAPTER I. 

THE SCIENCE OF THEOLOGY. 

Question 1. 

What is Theology? — Theology (deo^ God; 
Aoj/os', discourse) is the science of Divine Things. 
Hooker's Ec. Pol., III. 8. 11: Fleming's Vocab. 
of Phil: Pearson, De Deo, p. 1. 

2. A science (a.) treats of ascertained facts, — 
i.e. it is a department of learning: (b. ) its con- 
tents are arranged systematically, for greater con- 
venience and for more connected study. Theology 
is a department of learning, and its contents can 
be and have been arranged systematically. It is, 
therefore, a science. Newman's Idea of a Uni- 
versity, Disc. 2: Seminarian 1886, 3d paper. 

3. Theology treats of all things which pertain 
to God; — His nature and operations; His creatures 
and providential government; His dealings with 
creaturehood, and His designs, and the historical 



14 The Doctrine of God. 

facts and institutions which reveal and fulfil them; 
the future for which He is preparing all things, 
and the principles and laws of conduct which, as 
a consequence, it is the duty of man to obey. 

4. These elements are partly natural and part- 
ly supernatural. They lie partly within the range 
of our natural faculties and partly beyond, so as 
to require the aid of grace for their proper 
mastery. 

Question 2. 

What is the Supeenatueal ? — The Super- 
natural, theologically speaking, is that which sur- 
passes the normal order of the visible universe, 
including man, being neither a part of it nor 
subject to its conditions or powers. The natural 
lies within the visible order, and is subject to its 
conditions and limited by its powers. 

2. There is also a philosophical use of the term 
supernatural, by which everything which is con- 
scious and free is included in its application. The 
natural then signifies that which is unconscious 
and subject to a law which impels it by necessity, 
in one determined direction, from without. Man, 
by original constitution, is therefore supernatural. 
See BushrelVs Nafl and the SupH, Ch. 2, This 



The Science of Theology. 15 

use of the terms in question is perfectly valid and 
is common in Apologetics, but it does not apply 
in Positive Dogmatics, to such phrases as super- 
natural revelation, supernatural inspiration, super- 
natural grace, etc., where the thought of some- 
thing super-human is implied, cf. Gore's Bamp. 
Lee. II. 

3. We mast distinguish between the natural 
and the supernatural orders of Divine operation, 
for much Biblical and theological language will 
otherwise be unintelligible. But there can be no 
opposition between them. It is God that worketh, 
whether He employs natural forces, or supernat- 
ural ones, or both. 

Question 3. 

What is a Miracle? — A miracle is a super- 
natural event which constitutes an exception to 
the normal order of sensible phenomena, and, for 
that reason, excites wonder and awe. Mozleifs, 
Bamp. Lee. esp. I, II: Temple's Bamp. Lee. 
VII: Liddon's Some Elements, pp. 73-77: Fish- 
er's Grounds of Belief, Ch. IV: Man'l of Evid., 
Ch. 2. 

2. In the New Testament a miracle is called 



16 The Doctrine of God. 

either (irjpieiov, sign; or repots, portent; or 
dvva/xis, power. Fisher s Evid. p. 10. 

3. The exceptional character of a phenomenon 
called miraculous is not due, properly speaking, 
to a suspension of the natural order, but arises 
from the fact that supernatural forces supplement 
the natural ones and thus produce a phenomenon 
which the latter could not produce alone. God 
works in and through nature even when his work 
transcends its limitations. Fisher s Grounds, pp. 
108, 109: Evidences, pp. 11-13 (who points out 
the analogy between Divine miracles and the free 
activity of man in nature). 

4. The natural manifests a particular stage, of 
temporary character, in the visible work of God. 
The supernatural reveals and furthers the. larger 
plan or moral purpose of God in its progressive 
fulfilment. The miraculous (a.) vindicates the 
Divine order, disturbed by sin. Gore's Bamp. 
Lee. pp. 18-51: (b.) draws attention to and 
attests the supernatural, and its teaching. Moz- 
leifs Bamp. Lee, I: Fisher's Evid. pp. 19,20: 
(c.) Signifies a new step in the accomplishment 
of God's plan. Gore, pp. 52, 53. 



The Science of Theology. 17 

Question 4. 

What is natural law? — Natural law signi- 
fies the observed uniformity in the conjunction 
and sequence of given groups of phenomena. 

2. Natural law does not signify what must 
happen forever, but what does happen now, so far 
as experience extends. The "uniformity of na- 
ture" is a hypothesis which assumes that events 
will continue to happen as they have happened. 
There can be no demonstration of this. Temple's 
Bamp. Lee. I: Mozletfs Bamp. Lee. II: Fisher's 
Evicl. pp. 13, 14. 

3. Historical evidence shows that the present 
order of phenomena has been subject to miracu- 
lous exceptions; and we learn from the revela- 
tions which these miracles attest that this order 
will, in due time, give place to a new one. Moz- 
ley's Bamp. Lee. V: McLaren's Cath. Dog. Anti- 
dote of Doubt, c. 3: Fisher's Evid. c. IV-XI. 

4. We learn from revelation and natural ex- 
perience that the works of God are usually reg- 
ular both in nature and the supernatural. But 
the uniformity and unity of the supernatural was 
appreciated long before that of nature. Theo- 
logical science is more ancient than physical sci- 

2 



18 The Doctrine of God. 

ence — in fact, the mother o£ it. A. Moore's 
criticism of Drummond's Natfl Law, in Science 
and the Faith, esp. pp. 13, 14. 

5. But theological science dwells upon its 
uniformities — e. g. the sacramental laws of grace 
— chiefly with reference to their moral purpose. 
Physical science is concerned more with the uni- 
formities themselves. A. Moore, ibid. p. 8. 

6. Ascertained uniformities, so long as they 
continue, represent the conditions under which 
character is formed and men are to serve their 
probation in this life. This is true of the laws 
both of nature and of supernatural grace. Tem- 
ple's Bamp. Lee. III. pp. 90-96. For the rel. of 
Prayer to law, see Liddon's Some Elements, pp. 
184-187. 

Question 5. 

What faculties must be employed by a 
student of theology? — The faculties of reason 
and faith must be employed by a student of 
theology. 

2. By reason is not meant the intellect merely, 
but every psychical faculty. All of them— the 
intellect, the emotions, and the will — have to do 



The Science of Theology. 19 

with the acquirement of religious knowledge. 
Flint's Theism, pp. 68-71, 351-355: McLaren's 
Inner Proof's of God, pp. 10, 11: Cath. Dog. an 
Antidote of Doubt, c. 2: Gladstone's Church Prin. 
pp. 40-54. 

3. By faith is meant a supernatural endow- 
ment, by which the mind is enabled to perceive 
the truth and bearing of those spiritual things 
which surpass the capacity of man's natural 
understanding. It is not an independent faculty 
so much as an elevation of the natural under- 
standing by Divine grace. Blunt' s Die. of TheoL 
u Faith:" Forbes' Nic. Creed, pp. 15-18: Flint 7 s 
Theism, pp. 356-358: Liddon's Damp. Lee., pp. 
346, 347: Elver's Holy Spirit, pp. 103-106. 

4. To exercise the faculty of faith is an intel- 
lectual act, which results — not in mere opinion, 
but — in the same sort of certainty as do other 
intellectual acts. The same fundamental assump- 
tion is present in all cases, viz. that the faculty 
employed is trustworthy. It is of course, possi- 
ble to arrive at mere opinions through the super- 
natural intelligence, as well as through the nat- 
ural; but knowledge can be distinguished from 
opinion in one case as well as in the other. 
Flint's Theism, pp. 85, 86: Seminarian, 3d paper. 



20 The Doctrine of God. 

5. Faith is not possessed by all, nor in equal 
measure by those who have it. Its reality can be 
proved to one who denies its existence by testi- 
mony only. Lux Mundi, 1st paper, pp. 7-11 
Hooker 's Ec. Pol., V. 63. 2: Seminarian 3d paper. 

6. The energizing principle of an accurate faith 
is the supernatural life of Grace. This is given 
in Baptism, and nourished and developed in the 
Catholic Church as organized with the Apostolic 
Ministry and succession. Yet a measure of faith 
is imparted to all who respond to the motions of 
prevenient grace, whether they are afforded the 
opportunity of enjoying any or all of the benefits 
of God's Kingdom or not. Liddon' s Some Ele- 
ments, p. 71: Ewer's Holy Spirit pp. 27-31, 125- 
149: Stanton's Place of Authority, p. 105. 

7. There is a substantial unity of belief in all 
the widely sundered Communions of the Catholic 
Church. This unity is so close that Greek, Latin 
and Anglican alike employ three common Creeds, 
with but slight verbal variations, to express their 
faith — the Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian 
symbols. Such a u common consent" is signifi- 
cant, in view of the diversity of races and usages 



The Science of Theology. 21 

which exists, and the age-long mutual hostility 
which has prevailed. Such consent is not to be 
found elsewhere (Q. XI. 2). 

Question 6. 

What are the chief sources of theological 
data? — The chief sources of theological data are 
(a.) the physical sciences, so far as they indicate 
the existence and attributes of God and the man- 
ner of Divine operations. Hooker's Ec. Pol. I. 
8. 3: (b.) Anthropology, so far as it treats of the 
moral and religious nature and history of man : 
(c.) the testimony of the Catholic Church to 
revealed truth, contained in her Sacred Scriptures, 
summed up in the Creeds, and affirmed by the 
undisputed general councils. Lambeth Conference . 

2. The original source of knowledge concern- 
ing such truths as surpass our natural ability to 
discover is a series of progressive and supernat- 
ural revelations from God through His prophets 
and Incarnate Word, attested by miracles. But 
the immediate source of such knowledge on our 
part is the testimony of the Church, which has 
been constituted "the pillar and ground of the 
truth. 1 ' This testimony does not take the place 
of the Sacred Scriptures, but furnishes us with a 



22 The Doctrine of God. 



sure guide to their doctrinal interpretation. 
Palmer on the Church, Pt. III. ch. Ill, and V. 

3. The testimony or "voice" of the Church is to 
be ascertained primarily from the Apostles, 
Nicene, and Athanasian Symbols, which furnish 
the premesis of Christian thought (prceambulce 
fidei). 

4. The Creeds do not set the bounds of Christ- 
ian thought, but furnish it with proper points of 
departure. Christian thought is true "free 
thought," as opposed to all that is falsely so 
called. Emergency Tracts No. 4: Hooker's Ec. 
Pol. V. 63. 1: Gladstone's Church Prin. pp. 501- 
504. 

5. The Creeds do not explicitly contain all that 
the Church teaches, nor all that her members are 
under obligations to believe. She utters her 
u voice" in various wavs, — in the decrees of her 
undisputed General Councils and at all times, in 
her unformulated common consent; but especially 
in her Liturgy ? Ecclesiastical Calendar ? and other 
permanent institutions. The true theologian 
must study all of these, and the writings of the 
great Catholic Doctors of all ages, in order to 
avoid error. Stanton's Place of Authority, pp. 



The Science of Theology. 23 

175-187 : Pearson, De Deo', I. pp. 3-5: Hooker's 
Ec. Pol, VIII, 2.17: Owen's Dog. Theol.pp. 50-63. 

Question 7. 

What ake the chief divisions of theology? 
— The chief divisions of theology are Historical, 
Systematic, and Exegetical Theology. 

2. In Historical theology we study the develop- 
ment of human knowledge concerning Divine 
things, whether by means of revelation or human 
effort; the conflict between truth and error; the 
origin and historical significance of the dogmatic 
formularies of the Church; and the general course 
of Christian thought and action. 

3. In Systematic theology the materials fur- 
nished by Historical theology are arranged in log- 
ical order, for fuller and more connected study 
and for practical application. It is divided into 
Dogmatic and Moral theology. 

4. In Exegetical theology, the truths and prin- 
ciples which are taught by the Church and ar- 
ranged in Systematic theology; are established and 
illustrated by a critical analysis and interpreta- 
tion of the contents of Holy Scripture. 



24 The Doctrine of God. 

f Historical. 

! Dogmatic. 
Moral. 
l^Exegtical. 

Question 8. 

What is dogmatic theology? — Dogmatic theo- 
logy includes the arrangement and logical expo- 
sition of Divine facts, and the refutation of error 
and unbelief concerning them. 

2. It is called Dogmatic because its premises 
are the dogmas of the Church. 

3. Dogmatic theology has three divisions. 
Positive Dogmatics, which is concerned with the 
arrangement and exposition of Divine facts 
simply; Polemics, which is concerned with the 
refutation of error concerning these facts; Apo- 
logetics, which is concerned with the refutation 
and conviction of infidels. 

4. Our present work pertains to Positive Dog- 
matics, although it will be impossible, of course, 
to exclude polemical or apologetical material 
entirely. 



The Science of Theology. 



25 



Dogmatic 
Theology. 



\ 



Positive 
Dogmatics. 



i 



Polemics. 
Apologetics. 



Introduction. 

Theology Proper. 

Cosmology. 

Angelology. 

Anthropology. 

Christology. 

Pneumatology. 

Ecclesiology. 

Eschatology. 



CHAPTER II. 

DOGMA. 
Question 9. 

What is dogma? — Dogma (doypia, authorita- 
tive teaching) is an authoritative formulation of 
truth. Martensen's Dog. §1 : Owen's Dog. Theol. 
p. VI.: Moberley in Lux Mundi, pp. 220-229: 
Garbetfs Dogmatic Faith, pp. 13-16. 

2. Catholic dogmas are concerned with the 
facts of revelation, and are framed by the Church 
for the purpose of affording explicit, accurate, 
and exclusive statements concerning them, for 
the guidance of the faithful in the midst of 
error. They have the authority of the Church 
which sets them forth or receives them. Liddon ; s 
Some Elements, pp. 24-29: Bamp. Lee. pp. 3 ; 4, 
443-447. 

3. Some dogmas are framed by General Coun- 
cils and thus are decreed by the whole Church. 
Some are not thus set forth, but are received 
by the whole Church. In either case the obliga- 



Dogma. 27 



tion to receive them is the same. Gore's Ro. 
Cath. Claims, pp. 52, 53: Palmer on the Church, 
Pt.IV.ch. V and VII. 

4. It is one thing to hold the faith implicitly 
and another to state it explicitly, or receive it in 
the form in which it is explicitly stated. The 
faithful are under obligation to receive all the 
teachings of the Church implicitly, however set 
forth. They must also receive all explicit dog- 
mas of the Church, so far as they are in a posi- 
tion to ascertain what those dogmas are. Dix's 
Authority of the Church, Lee. I. and II: Pusey's 
Responsibility of Intellect in Matters of Faith. 

Question 10. 

What is the basis of the Church's author- 
ity to exercise her dogmatic office? — The 
basis of the Church's authority to exercise her 
dogmatic office is partly her own nature, partly 
the perpetual guidance of the Holy Ghost vouch- 
safed to her, and partly the commission which 
has been given to her Ministers to disciple all 
nations. 39 Arts. XX: Stanton's Place of Au- 
th'ty, esp. ch. I, II, IV: Forbes' 39 Arts. XX: 
Palmer on the Church, Pt. Ill ch. 5: Pt. IV. ch. 



28 The Doctrine of God. 

I-VII: Garbetfs Dogmatic Faith, esp. Lee. I: 
Sainton's In/all. of the Ch. 

2. The Church is the Body of Christ, indissolu- 
bly united to her Head, the Word of God. She 
is thus the Word Incorporate, in whom no one who 
earnestly seeks can fail to find the Word Incar- 
nate, the Light of the world. Ewer's Holy Spirit r 
pp. 45-47. 

3. Our Lord promised that the Holy Ghost 
should guide His Church into all truth. It is 
true that she incorporates fallible men into her- 
self, and that they do not cease to be fallible, in 
this life, even when assembled in Ecclesiastical 
Councils; but, in her corporate capacity, she is 
always u the pillar and ground of the truth 1 ' to 
those who are faithful to her life. Multitudes of 
her members and Ministers may fall away, but 
the gates of hell can never prevail against her. 
Stanton's Place of Authority, p. 105 (on the spirit- 
ual aptitude of Churchmen): Gore's B. Cath. 
Claims, pp. 69, 70. 

4. In order to disciple all nations successfully, 
the Church must at all times make known the 
actual contents of her message to those who are 
ready to receive her teaching. Therefore, when 



Dogma. 29 



the prevalence of error threatens to defeat this 
object, she is compelled to put forth plain state- 
ments of the truth and to stamp them with her 
formal authority. Mozlei/s Lee. and Theol. 
Papers VL, on the Dogmatic Office: Ewer's Holy 
Spirit, pp. 62-65. 

5. It will be seen that the Church does not ex- 
ercise her dogmatic office in order to repress or 
set the bounds of thought, but to protect her 
faithful ones from erroneous thought. She fur- 
nishes guides to true thinking, not substitutes for 
it. Stanton pp. 187-190. 

6. The Church was established in order that 
she might bear witness to the Resurrection and 
other facts of the Gospel. These facts cannot be 
known now except by testimony — i. e. on author- 
ity. The Church is the only living thing capable 
of giving this testimony. Her life spans the in- 
terval between the Resurrection and our own day ; 
and, as the only contemporary witness now sur- 
viving, she is the only available authority which 
is sufficient to substantiate our belief in the facts 
of the Gospel. Stanton, pp. 163-167 : Mason's 
Faith of the Gospel, VIII. 5. 



30 The Doctrine of God. 

Question 11. 

What is the Catholic eule of Faith? — 
The Catholic Rule of Faith, by which the contents 
of the Church's doctrine necessary to be received 
are determined, is best stated by St. Vincent of 
Lerins, as follows: "In the Catholic Church we 
must take great care to hold what has been be- 
lieved everywhere, always, and by all." In ipsa 
item Catholica Ecclesia magnopere curandum est, 
ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod 
ab omnibus creditum est. Cornm. c. 3. McLar- 
en's Cath. Dogma an Antidote of Doubt, Ch. 15, 16: 
Lackock's After Death, c. 1: Stanton's Place of 
Auth'ty., pp. 167-175: Puseifs Rule of Faith: 
Becorcls of the church, XXIV, XXV (in Tracts 
for the Times Vol. II) : Tracts for the Times, Vol. 
IV, No. 78: 

2. The first mark of any necessary part of the 
Catholic Faith is universality, by which is meant 
that it is held in all parts of the Church (Q. V. 7). 
Ewer's Holy Spirit, pp. 65-72. 

3. The second mark is antiquity, by which 
is meant — not merely that the primitive Church 
held it, but — that it has been held in the Church 
from the beginning until now. The Church's 



Dogma. 31 



voice is uttered in every age, and it has the same 
authority whether the Church collective or the 
Church diffusive is speaking. But the Church 
teaches only that which she has received — the 
Faith once for all delivered — and novelty is a 
proof of error. Gore's R. Cath. Claims, c. 3. 

4. The third mark is consent, by which is 
meant its reception by all, or nearly all, Catholic 
theologians. Gore's R. Cath. Claims, pp. 46, 47. 

Question 12. 

What aee the essentials of the Faith ? — 
The essentials of the Faith include every doctrine 
of the Church, known to be contained or neces- 
sarily implied in her original despositum of truth, 
and nothing more or less. 

2. The distinction often made between essen- 
tial and non-essential truth is misleading. The 
apparent insignificance of a truth cannot make it 
less essential to be believed, if it is known to have 
been revealed by God ; nor is the obligation to 
hold such a doctrine as that of the Incarnation 
any more imperative than that of accepting any 
other article of the Catholic Faith. The only cir- 
cumstance which warrants our calling a doctrine 



32 The Doctrine of God. 

non-essential is its uncertainty. Emergency 
Tracts No. 23, p. 1: Hooker's Serm. II. 32: Pal- 
mer on the Church, Pt. I. Ch. V. app. esp. pp. 
129, 130. 

3. There are certain theories of the schools 
which are called pious opinions or dubia. These 
are non-essential because they are uncertain. 
They may be true or not. They cannot be proved 
by Holy Scripture, and the Church does not re- 
quire them of any man that they should be be- 
lieved as articles of the Faith. Gore's R. Cath. 
Claims, p. 66: Palmer on the Church, Pt. I. ch. 
IV. §3: Pt.IV. ch. VI. 

4. No one can be justly assailed because of 
his attachment to a " pious opinion, 1 ' unless it can 
be demonstrated that that opinion is inconsistent 
with some portion of the Catholic Faith. 

Question 13. 

is a development of catholic doctrine 
legitimate? — A development of Catholic doctrine 
is not legitimate, in the sense of an increase in its 
substance ; but it is both legitimate and necessary 
in the sense of (a.) profounder analysis: (b.) 
larger statement: (c.) richer application: and (d.) 



Dogma. 33 



apologetical adjustment of language. S. Vincent 
Lir. Comm. c. 23: Gore's Rom. Cath. Claims, 
c. 3, pp. 53-55: Mozley on Development: 
Blenkinsopp on Development (very suggestive 
but crude): Stanton's Place of Auth'ty., pp. 
128-138,168-170: Liddon's Bamp. Lee, pp. 435- 
441, 448-450: Palmer's Doc. of Deveh and Con- 
science, c. VI- VIII. 

2. The Faith once delivered and held by the 
Church from the beginning contains, either ex- 
plicitly or by necessary implication, all that man 
can learn of revealed truth in this life. But the 
Holy Ghost is ever guiding the Church into a 
deeper appreciation and fuller consciousness of 
the truth. The studies of her theologians are 
continually bringing to light new treasures as well 
as old, such as were not realized in detail before. 
The meaning of the Sacred Scriptures can be 
more fully ascertained now than ever before, but 
u the latest age has not exhausted the meaning of 
what was once said." Westcotfs Bevel, of the 
Risen Lord, p. 160. 

3. Ecclesiastical statements of doctrine de- 
velop along with the development of Christian 
consciousness. The Church's explicit Faith is 
continually embracing larger areas of her implicit 

3 



34 The Doctrine of God. 

Faith. The growth of the Creeds from the bap- 
tismal formula illustrates this, as does also the 
gradual increase in the richness of Catholic the- 
ology. 

4. The relation and application of revealed 
truth to human life and its conditions cannot but 
be more adequately understood in the Church as the 
stores of her practical experience increase. The 
science of Moral Theology cannot be permanently 
crystalized. Temple' 's Bamp. Lee, V.pp. 146, 147, 
Moreover, every development of the sciences of 
nature and of man must put the Church in a bet- 
ter position to perceive the bearing of revealed 
truth. 

5. New forms of thought, and, therefore, of 
unbelief and assault upon the Faith, are continu- 
ally appearing. In order to meet them, Catholic 
theologians must translate the old truths into 
new language, and employ such forms of thought 
and argument as are likely to meet the difficulties 
of the willing and the sophistries of the unwilling. 
This does not involve an adjustment of the Faith 
but of its presentation. Nor does it justify a sur- 
render of the Catholic Creeds or Sacred Scriptures, 
but only an explanation of their meaning, in view 
of contemporary thought. . 



Dogma. 35 



6. Illegitimate developments arise from (a.) 
treating as essential what is only " pious opinion:" 
(b. ) undue emphasis of isolated parts of the Faith. 
This last is the characteristic mistake of heresy, 
which signifies making a, private choice of what to 
accept. It involves necessarily a denial of some 
other part. Rickey's Truth and Counter Truth, 
jp. Hi. Blunt 's Die. of Sects, " Heretics." 



CHAPTER III. 
HOLY SCRIPTURE. 

Question 14. 

What is the Bible? — The Bible is a series 
of " Sacred Scriptures," written by holy men of 
old, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost ;■ 
which has been compiled and preserved by the 
Church for the edification of the faithful, as " the 
Word of God," and a means by which every doc- 
trine can be proved which she requires of men as 
necessary for salvation. 39 Arts. VI: Forbes* 
39 Arts., VI; Hooker's Ec. Pol, I. 12-15: Rickey's 
What is the Bible. 

2. The Bible consists of a series of Scriptures 
which were written under diverse circumstances, 
by different writers, in different ages, and for a, 
variety of immediate purposes. But the impulse 
which moved every writer came from the same 
source. A unity of purpose governs the whole 
series. "The Old Testament is not contrary to the^ 
New * * * everlasting life is offered to mankind. 



Holy Scripture, 37 

by Christ," in both. 39 Arts. VII. Lee on In- 
spiration pp. 11-17 : Forbes' 39 Arts., VII: 

3. The impulse by which the sacred writers 
were moved is called inspiration, and came direct- 
ly from the Holy Ghost ; but the authority by 
which that inspiration is attested is the Catholic 
Church, without whose aid the Sacred Scriptures 
could not have been distinguished w T ith certainty 
from other writings of holy men, nor, in view of 
the mistakes of copyists, preserved from doctrinal 
-corruption. The Church is the witness and keep- 
er of Holy Writ. Lee on Inspiration pp. 33-36 : 
Stanton's Place of Auth'ty., pp. 74-80: 160-162: 
Wordsworth on Insp.,pp. 32-69, 82-88: Hooker's 
Eccl. Pol. III. 8. 13, U. 

4. The Sacred Scriptures were written from 
the point of view of God's Kingdom, and for the 
members of it ; to establish and strengthen them 
in the doctrine which they had learned or were 
in a position to learn in that Kingdom. Tertul. 
De Prescrip. Her. 19 et seq: Gore's R. Cath. Claims 
pp. 57, 58. 

5. The Bible not only contains the Word of 
God, but, in its integrity, is the Word of God. 
Every part is Divinely inspired and is of equal 



The Doctrine of God. 



authority, when interpreted in accordance with 
its organic relation to the whole course of revela- 
tion. Lee, p. 20. 

6. The Bible is not the source of truth for 
God's kingdom, for the Church's possession of it 
is more ancient than the Bible, and was derived 
from direct revelation. But the Bible is useful 
to prove what the Church teaches. It is often the 
means also by which individuals discover the true 
religion. The Church and the Bible are both 
necessary. Both are Divine and we may not sep- 
arate or mutually oppose them in our study of 
theology. Forbes' 39 Arts. VI. pp. 93-95: Gore's 
R. Cath. Claims, pp. 60-64: S.Basil on the H. Sp. 
XVII. 66, 67. 

Question 15. 

What two elements should be distinguished- 
in the Sacked Scriptures? — The Divine and the 
human elements should be distinguished in the 
Sacred Scriptures : one due to the inspiration of 
their authors, the other due to the fact that 
this inspiration did not emancipate the sacred 
writers from human limitations. Lee on Inspir- 
ation, pp. 18-21: 141-145: Wordsworth on Insp t> 
pp. 5-7. 



Holy Scbiptube. 39 

2. The Divine inspiration guarantees the ab- 
solute trustworthiness of the Sacred Scriptures in 
all religious and moral questions, and their profit- 
ableness for doctrine, reproof, correction, and in- 
struction in righteousness. Moreover the Church 
is enabled, by the guidance of the Holy Ghost, to 
preserve the Bible from any corruption which 
would defeat the purpose for which its authors 
were inspired. 

3. Yet the sacred writers were human even 
when inspired. They were not universally infall- 
ible, nor is it necessary to suppose that they re- 
ceived greater supernatural enlightenment than 
was needed to enable them to fulfil the religious 
and moral purpose for which they were inspired. 
That purpose did not include a revelation concern- 
ing secular history, physical science, or natural 
things. Whatever learning of such sort is dis- 
played is human learning and is subject to its lim- 
itations. Furthermore, Divine providence has not 
enabled the Church to preserve or recover the exact 
letter of the original text, or to provide absolutely 
accurate translations. The preservation of the 
Divine element has not required this. 

4. The Divine and human elements are insepar- 
ably united in one Holy Scripture. They cannot 



40 The Doctrine of God. 

be separated, nor is it possible to draw a line be- 
tween them or say that this passage is human 
and that Divine. Every part of the Bible, in its 
proper relation, is divinely inspired, and every 
part is human. 

5. Yet we may not confound the two ele- 
ments. We may not impute omniscience or uni- 
versal infallibility to the human writers, nor may 
we admit the possibility of error in the religious 
and moral message they were inspired to convey. 
The religious inspiration and the human limita- 
tion must both be acknowledged in their integrity. 

Question 16. 

What are the chief theories of Inspira- 
tion, and their sanction? — The chief theories 
of inspiration are the verbal, the doctrinal, the 
neologian, and the dynamic. The Church has not 
formulated or sanctioned any one of them. Lee 
on Inspiration pp. 18-26. 

2. The verbal theory is that God so inspired the 
sacred writers that every word which they wrote 
was selected absolutely by the Holy Ghost and 
not by themselves. Such a theory empties the 
human element of all reality, and makes it diffi- 



Holy Scripture. 41 

cult, if not impossible, to allow any authority to 
modern texts and translations. Lee, pp. 18, 19. 

3. The doctrinal theory acknowledges that 
the sacred writers were inspired to write true doc- 
trine; but denies that the particular form of their 
writings' had any other than a human source. 
Against this must be set the evidence that many 
of the very words of the Bible were Divinely se- 
lected — e. g. Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Messias, 
ransom, propitiation, and many others. We can- 
not determine just how far this verbal inspiration 
extends. Moreover there is often an u inspiration 
of selection,' 1 by virtue of which human materials 
are chosen and shaped in the manner best adapted 
to the Divine purpose. Liddon's Univ. Sermons 
Second Series, XX: Lee, pp. 32, 33. 

4. The Neologist identifies the inspiration of 
the sacred writers with that spiritual insight and 
wisdom which is possessed- by all righteous men 
who possess great natural gifts. Inspiration is 
attributed to such men as Socrates, Luther, and 
Keble. Thus inspiration is a matter of degree 
and is purely natural. This theory empties the 
word inspiration of all meaning, and is inconsist- 
ent with the unique and supernatural character of 
the Bible. Lee, pp. 19-21. 



42 The Doctrine of God. 

5. The dynamic theory is, that the writers of 
the Bible had their spiritual faculties quickened 
and enlarged by the Holy Ghost, without losing 
their literary freedom or the peculiarities of their 
style. This undoubtedly represents the truth in 
many instances, but, in some cases, the nature of 
the writing appears to require no peculiar illum- 
ination or spiritual power ; — e. g. the Book of 
Ruth, where the inspiration seems to have been 
merely an impulse to write ; and an over ruling of 
the process so as to impart a meaning to the result 
which the writer and his contemporaries knew 
little or nothing of. The Holy Ghost often co- 
operates, rather than empowers. Lee, pp. 21-26, 
141-145: Westcott's Introd. to the Study of the 
Gospels ; Introd. 

6. The variety of the wQrk of the Holy Ghost 
in inspiration is such that no attempt to general- 
ize is likely to be successful or lessen difficulties. 
It is sufficient to insist upon the fact of inspira- 
tion and its unique and plenary character ; ac- 
knowledging, at the same time, the reality of the 
human element. 



Holy Scripture. 43 

Question 17. 

What should inspiration be distinguished 
from? — Inspiration should be distinguished from 
revelation. Lee on Inspiration, pp. 7-9 , 27-31, 
145-148: Stanton's Place ofAuth'ty,pp. 71, 72. 

2. All parts of the Sacred Scriptures are in- 
spired, but some portions are not revelations. 
For example, the greater portion of the Apoca- 
lypse consists of a revelation concerning the con- 
summation of things ; but the book of Ezra is 
not a revelation so much as a narrative of events 
connected with the return of the Jews from Baby- 
lon. Yet both books are equally inspired and are 
given to us for our religious instruction. Lee, 
pp. 145-148. 

3. It is important to notice, in this connec- 
tion, that the revealer of all things is the Eternal 
Word, whether those things are recorded in the 
Old or the New Testament. Lee, pp. 7-9. 

4. But the source of inspiration is the Holy 
Ghost. By His aid the sacred writers were able to 
give us a true account of the revelations which pro- 
ceeded from the Son, and to write ichatever scrip- 
tures were intended to be preserved by the Church 
for our profit — whether in the form of narrative,. 



44 The Doctrine of God. 

drama, prophecy, parable, exposition, or exhorta- 
tion. Lee, pp. 9-11, 115-188, 81, 82. 

5. An examination of Holy Scripture shows 
that the revelations which it records were pro- 
gressive; being adapted to the ability of men to 
receive them, and becoming more explicit with the 
lapse of ages and the advance of the religious edu- 
cation of God's people. Thus it happens that, 
while the New Testament is latent in the Old and 
the Old implies the New, some doctrines of the 
New Testament cannot be proved by the Old Tes- 
tament alone. Temple's Bamp. Lee. V. pp. 186- 

158: Mozley's Ruling Ideas in Early Ages, Lee, 
X: Gore in Lux Mundi, pp. 828-882. 

6. The records of earlier revelations should 
be read in the light of later and more explicit 
ones. And, since the contents of all revelations 
recorded in Holy Scripture are embodied in "the 
Faith once delivered to the saints," of which the 
Catholic Church is the teacher and guardian, we 
should use her teaching as the only true key to 
the doctrinal interpretation of the Bible. 



PART II -THEOLOGY PROPER. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THEISM. 

Question 18. 

What is Theology Proper ? — Theology 
Proper is that part of Positive Dogmatics which 
is concerned with the doctrine of God, — His ex- 
istence, nature, attributes, subsistence, and oper- 
ations. 

2. The following order will be observed in 
these outlines: 

(a.) Theism ; or the proofs of the existence 
of God and their teaching. 

(b.) Revelation and its relation to Theism. 

( c. ) Anti-Theistic theories. 

(d.) The Quiescent attributes; or the Nature 
of God. 

(e.) The active attributes. 

(f.) The Trinity. 



46 The Doctrine of God, 

(g.) Divine Economy or the external oper- 
ations of God. 

Question 19. 

What is the distinction between demon- 
stration and moral proof ? — Demonstration 
proceeds from necessary and universal (a priori) 
truths, and deduces particular conclusions which 
necessarily follow. Moral proof, also called prob- 
able proof, proceeds from premises which are at 
least credible and exhibits a preponderance of ar- 
gument in favor of its conclusions. Pearson De 
Deo } Lee, III. p, 23, 

2. Demonstration produces apodeictic (Math- 
ematical) certainty. Its conclusions cannot be 
evaded. The opposite of a demonstrated proposi- 
tion is not only false but impossible to conceive, 
Fleming's > Vocab. "Demonstration:" Fisher's 
jEvid., p. 5. 

3. Moral proof produces moral certainty. 
Its conclusions can be evaded, through moral per- 
versity. The opposite of the morally certain is 
possible to conceive, but, properly speaking, in- 
credible. Fleming's Vocab. " Probability : " 
Fisher's Evid. p. 5. 



Theism. 47 



4. Probable proof is fitly called moral, be- 
cause its persuasiveness depends upon moral con- 
ditions. It is rarely successful with the unwill- 
ing. Yet one becomes responsible, when in pos- 
session of moral proof, for every evil which re- 
sults from ignoring its conclusions. Hooker's 
Ec. Pol., II. 7. 5: Butler's Anal, Introd. p. 72: 
Pt. II ch. 6, pp. 261, 262. 

5. Religious certainty is based upon moral 
proof. All the faculties of the soul are required 
for its proper acquirement: — the intellect, or logi- 
cal faculty; the affections, or sympathetic and ap- 
preciative faculty; the will or attentive faculty, 
which also tests by moral experience. A refusal 
to exercise either faculty renders one accountable 
for error (Q. V. 2). McLaren's Inner Proofs of 
God, pp. 9-11 : Liddon's Some Elements, Lee. I: 
Flint's Theism, pp. 2-4. 

Question 20. 

Can the existence of God be demonstkat- 
ed ? — The existence of God cannot be demon- 
strated, for there is no prior premise, independ- 
ently necessary, from which that conclusion can 
be drawn. Pearson De Deo, II. pp. 12-16: Clem. 
Alex. Strom. Bk. IV. ch. 12. p. 464. 



48 The Doctrine of God. 

2. " The being of God is the primal truth 
.... There is nothing before it nor apart 
from it, from which it is to be derived ..... 
In every mode of demonstration whose object 
is to arrive at it, it is assumed.'" Malford's Re- 
pub, of God, pp. 1-5. 

3. We cannot see God with our unaided fac- 
ulties (John I. 18). Pearson De Deo, Lee. XII. 
In the absence of demonstration, therefore, we 
depend upon moral proof and supernatural reve- 
lation for our knowledge of Him. S. Thos. Sum. 
Theol. I. 2. 1. 

4. God demands and puts us to the probation 
of a service which is free — such as free and 
rational creatures can give. The knowledge of 
His existence and nature is a primary part of that 
service and trial. Such knowledge, therefore, de- 
pends upon moral conditions within ourselves. 
No demonstration or revelation is given 
such as would compel us to believe or do away 
with effort on our part. Butler's Anal. II. c. 6 r 
esp. pp. 267 et seq: Liddon's Some Elements, pp. 
231-234. 



Theism. -49 



Question 21. 

is the existence of grod capable of moral 
•proof ? — The existence of God is capable of moral 
proof ; and by means of such proof all can acquire 
a moral certainty that He exists. Pearson De 
Deo, II. pp. 17, 18: Flint's Theism, pp. 59-86. 

2. This could not be said without qualification, 
in view of man's fall, did not God extend to all 
men such measure of prevenient ijrace as enables 
them to appreciate the proofs of His existence, if 
they will (Acts XVII. 26, 27). Butler's Anal. II. 
c 6. pp.264, 265: Liddon's Some Elements, p. 71 # 

Question 22. 

What fact does the argument for the ex- 
istence of God start with? — The argument for 
the existence of God starts with the fact of com- 
mon consent. All men have had an idea of a 
Supreme Being on Whom they depend, and have 
acknowledged His existence. At least, such ex- 
ceptions as exist can be accounted for, and are of 
such sort that they prove the rule. Stanton s 
Place of Autlity., pp. 56-63: Flint's Theism app. 
note VIII. pp. 348-350: Pearson Be Deo, 
II. pp. 16, 17: Liddon's Some Elements, pp. 48 , 
4 



50 The Doctrine of God. 

49: Flint's Anti-Theistic Theories Lee. VII. and 
app. notes XXVI-XXXII. 

2. Two sorts of men are mentioned as not 
acknowledging the existence of the Supreme Be- 
ing, viz. certain savage races, and certain avowed 
Atheists. Whatever may be the case with the 
former (cf. Tylors Prim. Culture I. 377 , 381,418), 
they are so abnormally degraded as to lack many 
other ideas which rational men commonly possess. 
The latter are interested in denying the existence 
of God. 

3. This common consent can only be ac- 
counted for in four ways: (a.) by connatural ne- 
cessity of such a belief to one constituted as man 
is: (b.) by the strength of the evidence furnished 
through' the common experiences of men: (c.) by 
primitive tradition. Flint's Theism app. Note 
IV: (d.) by repeated supernatural revelations. 

4. The significance of the fact of common 
consent is that it shows the onus probandi to be 
with the Atheist rather than with the Theist. 
Mason's Faith of the Gospel c. I. §3. The Atheist 
must prove that God does not exist. To do so he 
must be omniscient; for, otherwise, it could be 
alleged that some indication of God's existence 



Theism. 51 



had escaped his notice. In short he must him- 
self be God, which is an absurdity. Chalmers 
Nat. TheoL Vol. L, Bk. 1, c. 2: Flint's Anti-The- 
istic Theories pp. 8-14 3 446-450: Christliel/s Mod. 
Doubt, pp. 143 , 144. 

5. It is however desirable to exhibit the ar- 
gument for the existence of God for three reasons, 
(a.) to convince genuine seekers after God: (b.) 
to strengthen the faith of those who believe: (c.) 
to enrich our knowledge of the nature of God. 

Question 23. 

What sorts of proof have been" employed 
to prove the existence of God ? — A priori and 
a posteriori proof have been employed to prove 
the existence of God. 

2. A priori proof reasons from forms of cogni- 
tion which are seen to be prior to and independent 
of experience. A posteriori proof reasons from 
empirical premises — drawn from experience. 
Fleming 7 s Vocab. " a priori." 

3. Our acquaintance with a priori premises is 
occasioned by experience ; but our assurance of 
their validity is intuitive and not drawn from 
experience. 



52 The Doctrine of God. 

4. Aristotle and the Scholastics applied the 
phrase a priori to reasoning from cause to effect, 
and the phrase a posteriori to reasoning from 
effect to cause. S. Thos. Sum. Theoh I. 2. 2. The 
definitions here given have prevailed since the 
time of Kant. Fleming's Vocab. 

5. The order of treatment will be, (a.) attempts 
at a priori proof, especially of S. Anselm and Des 
Cartes : (b.) a posteriori proofs, including the cos- 
mological, teleological, historical, and moral. 

Question 24. 

What is the Ootological Akgument ? — 
The Ontological argument, which was first form- 
ulated by S. Anselm, proceeds as follows: "I 
have in my mind the idea of the most perfect be- 
ing conceivable. The most perfect being conceiv- 
able must have the attribute of necessary existence. 
One whose existence was contingent would not 
be the most perfect conceivable. Necessary ex- 
istence implies actual existence. An absolutely 
perfect Being therefore actually exists, and He is 
God. Given in Norris' Rudiments of Theology p. 
18; cf S. Anselm' s Proslog. 2 (in Migne's Patrol 
T. 158, p. 228): S. Thos. Sum. Th. I. 2. 1: Flint's 
Theism Lee. IX, esp. pp. 278-280 (sustains the 



Theism. 53 



arc/.): Fisher's Grounds of Belief, pp. 39-41: 
Liddoris Some Elements, pp. 49-51: Pearson De 
Deo II. p. 12. 

2. S. Thomas rejects the argument for the 
following reasons: (a.) it does not appeal to all, 
for some regard God as a body — not as the great- 
est Being conceivable; (b.) it begs the question, 
for the necessity of thinking that the most per- 
fect conceivable Being exists is not equivalent to 
the fact of His existence, nor a demonstration of 
it. cf Pearson De Deo ; II. 18-21: WaterlancVs 
Dissert, on Arg. a priori, Vol. III. 321 et. seq. 

3. To these objections may be added the 
further difficulty, that our most perfect concep- 
tion falls short of the Infinite Being whose ex- 
istence we desire to prove. Flint p. 280. 

4. Des Cartes undertook to employ this ar- 
gument, but was forced by the exigencies of con- 
troversy to adopt an a posteriori form (see Q. 25). 
Many attempts. at a priori proof were also made 
in the 18th Century. Flint, app. XXXVIII. 

5. A priori proof is formally imperfect; but 
the attempt to employ it brings to light in a forc- 
ible manner (a.) the connctturalness of our belief 
in the existence of God: (b.) the fact that we must 



54 The Doctrine of God. 

either believe that God exists or else regard the 
fundamental conditions of human thinking as 
delusive. The latter alternative is equivalent to 
an assertion of universal insanity, which would 
preclude the possibility of any science whatever. 
Flint's Theism, pp. 285-288. 

Question 25. 

What is the argument of Des Cartes? — 
The argument of Des Cartes is as follows: u We 
have the idea of an infinitely perfect Being. As 
we are finite, that idea could not have originated 
with us. As we are conversant only with the 
finite, it could not have originated from anything 
around us. It must, therefore, have come from 
God, Whose existence is thus a necessary as- 
sumption. ,? Med. de Prim. Philos. prop. II: 
Hodge's Sijst. Theol. Vol. I 205: Pearson De 
Deo, III. pp. 27-30. 

2. Des Cartes says elsewhere {prop. 3, 4.), 
" Notiones nostras esse aut adventitias, aut facti- 
tias, aut innatas. Ideam de Deo non esse adven- 
titiam, Deum enim non experientia duce reperiri; 
neque f actitiam, nam non arbitrio a nobis affic- 
tamesse: ergo esse innatam, sive a Deo ipso nobis 
silpjredi'talam." 



Theism. 55 



3. The difference between the argument of 
S. Anselm and that of Des Cartes is that the 
former supposes the existence of God to be in- 
volved in our idea of Him, while the latter infers 
the existence of God to account for the idea. 
Hodge's Syst. Theol. Vol. I. 206. The latter is 
really a posteriori, and is subject to the. limita- 
tions of such arguments, cf. Bowen's Mod. Philos. 
p. 27 et seq. 

Question 26. 

What is the Cosmologicul argument? — 
The Cosmological argument proceeds from the 
phenomena of the universe and their harmony to 
an Infinite First Cause to account for them. 
Licldon's Some Elements, pp. 51-53, 66: Flint's 
Theism, Lee. IV: Pearson DeDeo, III. pp. 30-32: 
S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 2, 3. Hodge's Outlines, pp. 
33-35. 

2. u Finite things have not their origin in 
themselves. We trace effects back to their 
causes; but these causes are found to be, also, ef- 
fects, cf. Flint's Theism, pp. 118-124. The path 
is endless. There is no goal. There is no satis- 
faction, save in the assumption of being that is 
causative without being caused, or being which 



56 The Doctrine of God. 

has the ground of existence in itself. 11 Fisher's 
Grounds of Belief, pp. 41, 42. 

3. The idea of self-caused being causing all 
other being, including the personal, suggests 
naturally and logically the ascription of will and 
personality to that being. Fisher ibid: Flint, 
pp. 129, ISO 

4. Two premises are assumed, (a.) that phe- 
nomenal events require causality: (b.) that the 
world is not itself eternal and therefore not self- 
caused. The former would seem to be axiomatic, 
but Hume objected that we cannot observe caus- 
ality. What we actually see is succession. Yes, 
but we intuitively recognize the difference be- 
tween mere succession and the succession of cause 
and effect, and the reality of causality accounts 
for this discrimination more satisfactorily than 
any other hypothesis. Mozleifs Essays Hist, and 
Theol. pp. 415-444: Flint, pp. 97-101. 

5. The other premise is disputed by the 
Pantheist, who regards the universe as self-caused 
and eternal. But, while it is impossible to dem- 
onstrate directly the falsity of such a contention, 
the following considerations militate against its 
truth: (a.) All history, comparative philology, 



Theism, 57 



and ethnology indicate that the human race is of 
recent origin: (b.) the evidences of development 
in nature and of dissipation of heat point back to 
a beginning of the present order. Chalmers 
Nat. Theol. Bk. I. c. 5: Flint's Theism pp. 101- 
118: Mason's Faith of the Gospel, ch. I. §4. 

6. Holy Scripture teaches that God can be 
known through His works (Acts XIV. 15-17: 
XVII. 22-29: Rom. I. 19, 20). 

Question 27. 

What is the Teleological argument? — The 

Teleological argument starts with the evidences 
of design observable in nature and infers the ex- 
istence of a Designer of sufficient wisdom to ac- 
count for them. As Fisher says, u We see a 
thought realized and thus recognize in it a fore 
thought," — and a Fore-thinker. Grounds of Be- 
lief, pp. 42-67: Paleifs Nat. Theol., opening chap- 
ters: Flint's Theism, Lee. V. VI: Liddon's Some 
Elements, pp. 53-55: Hodge's Outlines, pp. 35-41: 
MacColl's Christianity in Rel. to tic. and Morals, 
pp. 17-21: Nor r is' Rud. of Theol., pp. 19-21: 
Mozleg's Essays, pp. 363-413: S. Thos. Sum. Th., 
I. 2, 3, qui i it a. 

2. The facts with which this argument 



58 The Doctrine of God, 

starts are (a.) universal order and adjustment, as 
of means to ends: (b.) the unity of nature as seen 
in the coincidence and co-operation of physical 
causes to the production of single results, and in 
the general harmony of the ends to which all parts 
of nature are adapted. Fisher, p. 43. 

3. Kant raised two objections in his Critique 
of Pure Reason, (a.) the argument proves the ex- 
istence of an architect or fashioner of nature, but 
not a Creator of its material elements. This is 
true, but all the argument pretends to prove is 
that the First Cause is intelligent. None the 
less, it appears propable that He is also the Crea- 
tor of matter, although for other reasons. Mat- 
ter cannot be separated from those properties 
which constitute its adaptibility. Flint, pp. 170- 
173. 

4. (b). An Infinite Creator cannot be in- 
ferred, strictly speaking, from finite creation 
however great and wonderful. All that can be 
insisted upon is a being of inconceivably great 
power and wisdom. This is also true, but infin- 
ity is necessarily involved in the idea of an un- 
conditioned Being. Fisher, pp. 49, 50. Flint, 
pp. 174-177. 



Theism. 59 



5. The alternative of Design is Chance. Lu- 
cretius held that the world is the result of a " for- 
tuitous concourse of atoms " But one might as 
reasonably believe that a haphazard collection of 
small metallic gieces could, by mere accident, fall 
on some paper in such wise as to print this vol- 
ume. MacColl, p. 19. 

6. The evolutionary hypothesis is not incon- 
sistent with the Teleological argument. It is 
concerned with the how — not the why. Gradual- 
ness of development does not exclude design. 
Knowledge of the process is not knowledge of the 
cause. Flint, pp. 189-209: Fisher, pp. 55, 60, 61: 
Lidclon, p. 54, note: MacColl, p. 20: Temple's 
Bamp. Lee. IV: Mason's Faith of the Gospel, ch. 
I. §4. 

7. The Psalmist says (XCIV. 9) " He that 
made the ear, shall He not hear? And He that 
gave the eye, shall He not see?" Why not add, 
" He that made the mind shall he not think?' 1 
Licldon, p. 53. 

Question 28. 

What is the Historical argument? — The 
Historical argument employs the evidences of de- 
sign — especially moral design — which are observ- 



60 The Doctrine of God. 

able in the general course of history, to prove the 
existence of a supreme, wise and righteous Gover- 
nor of the physical and moral world. Flint's 
Theism, pp. 227-261: Fisher's Grounds of Belief , 
p. 69: Hodge's Outlines, pp. 42-44. 

2. The theory of evolution, whatever diversi- 
ties may prevail in the manner of holding and 
stating it, strengthens this argument greatly; for 
it indicates that the whole course of nature has 
been ordered from the beginning with reference 
to a lofty and spiritual product — the perfect man. 

3. In particular, thoughtful men admit that 
the course of human history exhibits continual 
progress towards a more and more perfect exhi- 
bition of righteousness and goodness. The his- 
tories of social life, nations, crime, law, and relig- 
ions supply abundant evidence of this. Sacred 
history, whatever may be thought as to its sacred- 
ness, reveals the same progress towards the same 
end. 

4. The evidences of physical and moral dis- 
order in the world do not destroy the force of 
this argument; for fa.) the most they can be said 
to prove is, that the complete fulfilment of God's 
design has not yet been attained: (b. ) whatever 



Theism. 61 



may be the nature and origin of evil, it does not 
defeat the continual moral progress of the world: 
(c. ) There are indications that God so over rules 
the forces of evil that He makes them very in- 
struments in accomplishing His own good designs. 
Flint , Lee. VIII: Liddon's Some Elements, pp. 
142-148: Butler's Anal. Pt. I. ch. VII. p. 182: 
MacCollonthe Creed, pp. 57-60. 

Question 29. 

What is the Moral argument? — The Mor- 
al argument proceeds from the sense of account- 
ability and the religious instinct common to all 
men, and infers that there must be a righteous 
and personal Ruler and Judge to Whom we are 
accountable, and Whom we ought to worship. 
Strong' s Syst. Theol., pp. 45-47 : Flint's Theism, 
pp. 210-226: Fisher's Grounds of Belief, pp. 67- 
69: Mason's Faith of the Gospel, ch. I. §5: Lid- 
don's Some Elements, pp. 67-71: Hodge 1 % Outlines 
pp. 41, 42. 

2. Men pass judgments upon their neigh- 
bors on the assumption that they are accountable 
morally. These judgments are not limited to 
cases in which the person judging has been in- 
jured. There are instances in which the account- 



62 The Doctrine of God. 

ability can only be satisfied on the assumption 
that there is a Judge and Punisher Who is over 
all. Thus men bear witness to their own ac- 
countability, and to the existence of Him to 
Whom they must render account. 

3. Butler, in his Sermons on Human Nature ; 
says of the conscience, u Had it the power as it 
has manifest authority, it would absolutely gov- 
ern the world." But authority presupposes pow- 
er. The conscience has authority because it wit- 
nesses to a law, a purpose, of One Who has the 
power upon which its own authority must rest. 
Strong's Sijst. TheoL, p. 46: Liddon's Some Ele- 
ments, pp. 66-70. 

i. Religion in some form or other, however 
debased, is universal; which bears witness to a 
sense of dependence upon God equally universal. 
S. Augustine says, Conf. I. 1, u Thou hast made 
us for Thyself, and our heart is restless till it find 
rest in Thee.'" cf. references under Q. 22. 

Question 30. 

What is the force of the arguments for 
God's existence ? — The force of the arguments 
for God's existence is cumulative , and sufficient to 
produce, in any unprejudiced mind, a moral cer- 



Theism. 63 



tainty that He exists. Flint's Theism, pp. 62-75: 
Liddon's Some Elements, p. 70: Barry's Boyle 
Lee. 1876, Lee. III. 

2. Each particular argument is logically im- 
perfect; but each suggests the hypothesis of God's 
existence as the true way to account for the phe- 
nomena of the universe. When this hypothesis 
is once adopted, innumerable lines of evidence are 
seen to converge upon and corroberate it. While, 
therefore, the hypothesis is seen to be the " solu- 
tion of a problem," rather than the conclusion of 
a demonstration, the fact that it is the true solu- 
tion becomes as certain as any scientific convic- 
tion. Colder wood's Moral Phil. pp. 223-232: 
Strong's Syst. Theol. p. 50: Masons Faith of the 
Gospel, eh. I. §2. 

3. The hypothesis that God exists is known 
by all: and the a posteriori evidence which corrob- 
erates it is everywhere exhibited before the eyes 
of men. Therefore, the sufficiency of evidence 
for reasonable assurance, coupled with the fact 
that the Being Whose existence is at issue is a 
Moral Governor Who demands our worship and 
service, renders all men accountable who refuse 
to believe in Him (Rom. 1. 18 et seq). Chalmer's 



64 The Doctrine of God. 

Nat. Theol. Bk. I. c. I, II esp. c, II §16, pp. 72, 
73: Dr. Pusey's Responsibility of the Intdlect in 
Matters of Faith. 

Question 31. 
What do the evidences of God's existence 

TEACH US CONCERNING HlS ATTRIBUTES ? — The 

evidences of God's existence teach us that He is 
the uncaused, eternal and infinite Cause and 
Orderer of all things, One and unique, intelligent, 
free, and personal, the beneficent and righteous 
Governor of the world, Whom we should worship 
and Whose will we should ascertain and obey. 
Chalmer's Nafl, Theol, B'k. V. ch. 4, pp. 358- 
387: Barry's Boyle Lee. 1876, pp 320 324: Mar- 
tenser? 8 Dog., §38: S. Thos. Sum, Th., I. 2. 2. ad 
sec : 

2. The arguments for the existence of God 
do not originate our faith therein. They justify 
it, and afford points of view from which to con- 
template its Object. They show, not simply that 
God is; but, by drawing our attention to certain 
inferences which can be gathered from His hand- 
iwork, they help us to see what He is. Fisher's 
Grounds of Belief, p. 37. 

3. The Cosmological argument points to One 



Theism. 65 



uncaused First Cause and Orderer of all things. 
Such a Being must be without beginning, i. e. 
eternal; and self-conditioned, i. e. infinite. He 
must also be unique, as supreme, for to suppose 
two supremes is absurd. Flint's Theism, pp. 124- 
129. 

4. The evidences of Design in nature show 
that this First Cause is intelligent and free, there- 
fore personal. 

5. The Historical argument employs evi- 
dences which indicate this wise Person to be ben- 
eficent since He over-rules all things for the ul- 
timate good of His creatures. 

6. The Moral argument draws attention to 
indications that the Good Being Whom we call 
God is righteous in all His ways and will not be- 
hold iniquity. 

7. From the universal prevalence of the re- 
ligious instinct, and the sense of accountability, 
we are led to infer that our worship is due to God 
and that our lives must be conformed to His will, 
however made known. 



CHAPTER V. 

REVELATION. 

Question 32. 

is man able to acquike sufficient knowl- 
EDGE of God and His will without Divine 
aid? — Man is not able to acquire sufficient 
knowledge of God and His will without Divine 
aid. Such aid is given, however, and is twofold; 
(a.) Divine grace, which is an internal gift cor- 
recting and strengthening the spiritual vision: 
(b.) supernatural revelation, which is external 
and objective. Flint's Theism, Lee. X. 

2. The term revelation signifies, in Theology, a 
special and supernatural unveiling of truth by 
God. The word is also used to signify the con- 
tents of what is thus unveiled. Lee on Inspira- 
tion, Lee. I: Stanton's Place of Authority, pp. 
29-38. 

3. We need supernatural revelation in order 
(a.) to understand more clearly and with infalli- 
ble authority what nature itself teaches: (b.) to 



Revelation. 67 



gain additional information concerning God's 
nature and purposes towards us, and concerning 
the obligations which arise therefrom, more ex- 
plicit than is otherwise available. Butler's Anal- 
ogy Pt. II. c. 1. pp. 193-205: Barry's Boyle Lee. 
1876 ; p. 325: Liddon's Some Elements , pp. 72, 
73: Fisher's Evid., pp. 22-25: Strong's Syst. 
Theol.,pp. 58 ; 59: Hodge's Outlines , pp. 58-61: 
ChristlieVs Mod. Doubt, Lee. II. 

4. Revelation does not contradict the indica- 
tions of Divine truth in nature but gives them 
articulate expression, and supplements them. 
Nature without revelation is largely a moral en- 
igma. Stanton pp. 36-38: Martensen's Log., 
§43. 

5. The science of Theology borrows from 
the sciences of nature, but only as they are irra- 
diated and supplemented by revelation (cf. Q. 6.) 
Martensen's Dog. §44. 

Question 33. 

What is Rationalism? — Rationalism is 
that system or theory which attributes undue 
authority to reason in matters of religion. It 
has three forms; (a.) Deistic, which denies both 
the possibility and fact of revelation, making the 



68 The Doctrine of God. 

unaided reason the ground and source of all re- 
ligious knowledge: (b.) the theory which admits 
the possibility and fact of revelation, but asserts 
that its contents are within the poiver of reason 
to discover and demonstrate apart from their 
revelation: (c.) Dogmatism, which admits the 
necessity and authority of revelation, but claims 
that what is thus received can be philosophically 
established and explained so as to elevate the 
thoughtful believer from faith to knowledge. 
Hodge's Syst. Theol. Vol I. pp. 34-49: Hodge's 
Outlines, pp. 56, 57: Christlieb's Mod. Doubt, pp. 
190-209. 

2. According to Deism, God so made the 
world that it is subject to certain laws, and is 
carried on by secondary causes, with which He 
neither will nor can interfere. An interference 
would imply some imperfection in the original 
work of creation. Such a theory assumes that 
nature, as originally constituted, is sufficient in 
itself, and represents the finality of God's external 
operation. But the physical and moral imperfec- 
tion of nature, thus interpreted, is a frightful en- 
igma, which must drive the questioner into pes- 
simism or skepticism. Hodge, pp. 34-39: Christ- 
lieb: Farrar's Hist, of Free Thought, Lee. IV: 
Liddon's Some Elements, pp. 55-59. 



Revelation. 69 



3. According to the second form of rational- 
ism, the purpose of revelation is merely to pub- 
lish more widely and authenticate to the masses, 
the doctrines of natural religion, discoverable by 
philosophers without its aid. A cultivated man 
should believe only what is reasonable, i. e. com- 
prehensible. Holy Scripture contains a true reve- 
lation, but other things also which are to be re- 
jected as unreasonable. But it is to be noted that 
(a.) assent is based on evidence rather than com- 
prehension. Even in the natural world we ac- 
cept what we do not understand: (b.) the multi- 
tude cannot rationalize and are cut adrift by this 
theory. Hodge, pp. 39-44. 

4. Dogmatism distinguishes between faith, 
7ti6Ti$, which is for the common people who de- 
pend upon authority simply ; and knowledge, 
yvobGiS, to which philosophers attain through 
speculative analysis and logical demonstration of 
the contents of revelation. This theory (a.) 
assumes that man can exhaustively analyze and 
demonstrate such doctrines as the Trinity and 
Incarnation: (b.) exalts the intellect at the ex- 
pense of the rest of man's spiritual nature: (c.) 
disparages the faith of the many, and creates a 
proud religious aristocracy. Hodge, pp. 44-49. 



70 The Doctrine of God. 

5. All the above forms of rationalism are found 
among those who affect what is termed " liberal 
Christianity." 

6. Human reason is necessary for religious 
knowledge (cf. Q. 5), nor ought any thing to be 
accepted which is really in conflict with it. But 
(a.) it needs the aid of grace: (b.) it must use all 
available sources of truth, including revelation: 
(c.) it must assent, on sufficient evidence, even 
when comprehension is impossible ; for that 
which surpasses comprehension is not necessarily 
in conflict with reason. Christlieb's Mod. Doubt , 
pp. 70-94: Hodge's Outlines, pp. 62-64. 



CHAPTER V. 
ANTI-THEISTIC THEORIES. 

Question 34. 

What is Atheism ? — Atheism is an absolute 
denial that God exists. Flint's Anti-Theistic 
Theories, Lee. I: Blackie's Natural Hist, of Athe- 
ism: Hodge's Syst. Theol. pp. 241-243: Christ- 
UeVs Mod. Doubt, pp. 138-144. 

2. There is no reason to charge a man with 
dishonesty who claims to be an Atheist ; but such 
a person can never be consistent, for he must act 
as if there were a God, however unconscious of 
the fact he may be. Flint, pp. 5-8: Hodge, pp. 
242, 243. 

3. As has been said already (Q. 22.4), it is 
impossible for one who is not omniscient — i.e. 
Divine — to demonstrate the non-existence of God. 
Furthermore, mere probabilities cannot justify 
Atheism, for as long as a bare possibility remains 
that a Moral Governor of the universe exists 
Whom it is our duty to worship and serve, it is 



72 The Doctrine of God. 

our duty to study further before denying His ex- 
istence (Q. 30.3). 

Question 35. 

What is Agnosticism ? — Agnosticism is that 
system which denies that God is knowable. 
Fisher's Grounds of Belief, pp. 85-102: Flint's 
Anti-Theistic Theories, pp. 14, 15: Iverach's Is 
God Knowable? Present Day Tracts VIII. by Dr. 
Porter: Didon's Science without God, Disc. 7. I. 

2. Agnosticism, as set forth by Herbert 
Spencer, does not deny the existence of God but 
our knowledge of Him. It is not a mere profes- 
sion of ignorance but denies the possibility of 
knowledge. This denial is based upon a priori 
considerations drawn from our idea of the infinite. 

3. Agnosticism contradicts itself. We can- 
not argue that God is unknowable because infinite, 
until we have acquired that very knowledge of 
the nature of the Infinite which we deny to be 
possible. Thus Agnosticism is an offensive form 
of Dogmatism. Flint, p. 15. 

4. We do not, indeed, comprehend the nature 
of God perfectly ; but, if imperfect comprehension 
signifies entire ignorance, much of what is called 



Anti-Theistic Theories. 73 

natural science is a delusion. Hodge's Syst. Theol. 
L.pp. 335-365. 

Question 36. 

What is Materialism? — u Materialism is 
that system which ignores the distinction be- 
tween matter and mind, and refers all the phe- 
nomena of the world, whether physical, vital or 
mental, to the functions of matter." Hodge's 
Syst. Theol. Vol Lpp. 216-299: Flint's Anti-Th. 
Theories, Lee. LL-IV (historical): Christlieb's 
Mod. Doubt, pp. 145-161 : Liddon's Some Elements 
pp. 43-48: Tuttoch's Mod. Theories, pp. 125-168: 
Didon's Science without God, Disc. LL. 

2. Materialism was first systematized by Epic- 
urus (342-271 B. C), and modern Materialism 
has not advanced beyond his position. He taught 
that (a.) ex nihilo nihil fit, and the universe is 
without beginning or end: (b.) space and the 
number of bodies in it are infinite: (c.) matter is 
made up of atoms, which are simple, invisible, 
and indivisible: (d.) these atoms are endowed 
with forces in addition to gravity: (e.) the amount 
of matter and force is always the same: (f.) atoms 
are in perpetual uiotion, and their combinations 
form the cosmos: (g.) the soul is material and 



74 The Doctrine of God. 

mortal, passing into other combinations with the 
dissolution of the body: (h.) sensation is the only 
source of knowledge: (i. ) nothing is immaterial 
except a vacuum. Hodge, pp. 246 , 247. 

3. Materialism cannot be true unless the fol- 
lowing teachings can be accepted: (a.) that God 
is corporeal. S. Thos. Sum. Th. I. 3. 1: (b.) 
that the soul is mortal. Strong's Syst. Theol.,pp* 
555-562: (c.) that life is fatalistic, a matter of 
natural and necessary process simply. Fisher's 
Grounds, pp. 3-18: (cl.) that there is no moral 
obligation. Conduct should be ruled by science — 
e. g. the fittest should survive. Hospitals are a 
mistake. Flint, pp. 500-504. 

Question 37. 

What is Positivism? — Positivism is a system 
formulated by Anguste Gompte (1798-1857) which 
asserts that no knowledge is possible which does 
not come through the external senses, and that 
nothing is or can be known except phenomena 
and their laws. The ideas of causality and design 
cannot be established and Theology is a delusion. 
Flint's Anti-The. Theories, Lee. V. espee. pp. 180- 
190: Liddon's Some Elements, pp. 46-48: Tulloch's 



Axti-Theistic Theories. 75 

Mod. Theories, pp. 3-88: Didon's Science with- 
out God, Disc. I. 

2. Positivism is Materialistic, but in being so 
is inconsistent ; for, if our knowledge is confined 
to phenomena, how is it possible to assert any- 
thing as to what underlies phenomena, — that it 
is material, or spiritual, or anything at all. Flint, 
pp. 180, 181. 

3. Furthermore, we are not warranted in 
calling all phenomena material. We have a know- 
ledge of internal phenomena, such as thinking, 
feeling and willing, which is as certain as any 
portion of our knowledge. Phenomenally speak- 
ing — i. e. apparently — these are not material phe- 
nomena but spiritual, and to say othei*wise is to 
assert more than mere phenomenalism justifies. 
Flint, pp. 181-184. 

4. Positivism leads logically to skepticism. 
To be consistent it must repudiate, not only all 
Theistic belief, but also, belief in any thing beyond' 
mere appearances. That these appearances have 
any real or permanent basis, or any other founda- 
tion than subjective delusion is impossible for a 
consistent Positivist to assert. But Positivists, like 
Agnostics, are omniscient concerning things which 



76 The Doctrine of God. 

their own principles preclude any knowledge of. 
Flint, pp. 184-190. 

Question 38. 

What is Pantheism? — Pantheism is that 
system of thought which identifies, or at least 
confounds, God with the world or totality of 
being. Flint's Anti-The. Theories, Lee. IX (his- 
torical) and X: Liddon's Some Elements, pp. 59-66: 
Martensen's Dogmatics, §§ 39-43: Cliristlieb's 
Mod. Doubt, pp. 161-190: Didon's Science without 
God, Disc. III. 

2. Pantheists agree in the following particu- 
lars (a.) there is but one substance, universal and 
eternal, with many modes : (b ) God is immanent 
in the world but not transcendent. (Some deny 
all reality to the world — acosmism): (c.) God is 
impersonal, having neither consciousness nor will : 
(d.) There is no creation, but only an unending 
and necessary process in eternal substance : (e.) 
Men are not individual substances, but passing 
moments in the life of Diety, which will disappear 
with the dissolution of the body, never to return : 
(f.) Human acts are Divine and without freedom : 
(g.) Evil is a form of Divine activity — really good: 
(h.) Man is the highest mode in the life of Deity. 



Anti-Theistic Theories. 77 

The Incarnation, when accepted at all, is said to 
be a revelation of this. Hodge's Syst. Theol. 
Vol I, pp. 300-309. 

3. Pantheism assumes many deceitful shapes, 
and contaminates the faith of many Christian 
thinkers and writers who do not suspect the fact. 
Flint, pp. 391, 392: Emergency Tracts No. 9. 

4. The vitality of the system arises from its 
many-sidedness. It appeals to every type of mind 
by presenting as Divine those elements of the 
objective and subjective world to which each 
individual is attracted. But the religious and 
moral consequences which Pantheism involves 
are terrible, (a.) By declaring God impersonal it 
removes the only sufficient basis of worship 
and dependence upon Divine providence : (b.) 
By merging all things into God it deifies man : 
(b.) By denying the reality of evil and of man's 
accountability to a personal Judge it destroys the 
only warrant for praising or blaming anybody, 
and cuts the ground from under common mor- 
ality. 



• CHAPTER VII. 

THE DIVINE NATURE. 
Question 39. 

What is our primary notion of God ? — 
Our primary notion of God is of the Infinite 
Being — i.e. not limited in essence except by 
what is internal to Himself. Strong's Syst. Th., 
j>p. 122, 123: Pearson De Deo, VI. 60-64: S.Thos. 
Suwl Th.,L 7: Hodge's Sijst.'Th. Vol I. 380- 
384: Suarez Sum. Tr. I. lib. II. c. I: Fisher's 
Grounds of Belief, pp. 38, 39 : Perrone Tract De 
Deo, Vol. II. Pars II. c. III. 

2. The term infinite is negative (not finite) 
and escapes positive definition. But, while inde- 
finable, it is not indefinite. The word represents 
an idea in our minds which is positive. There is 
nothing absurd in this. We have a positive idea 
of sweetness, but we cannot define it because it is 
unique. There is no basis of comparison. The 
infinite is also unique, but there is also another 
Teason for our inability to define it. It transcends 



The Divine Nature. 79 

all things and surpasses our power of comprehen- 
sion (Psa. CXLV. 3). Strong, p. 122. 

3. The infinity of God is not extensive, as if 
it were a matter of size or quantity. Size is not 
a Divine attribute. It is intensive and relates to 
the character and quality of His essence. Hence 
there is no inconsistency in saying that other be- 
ings exist which are not included in His sub- 
stance. They do not limit His substance for it is 
spiritual, nor His perfection for it is not depend- 
ent. The Infinite is not the all. Strong, pp. 122, 
123. 

4. The Infinite is neither the undetermined 
nor the unconditioned, but the ^//-determined 
and the ^//"-conditioned. External 9 conditions 
are unnecessary to Him but not impossible. It is 
an element in His greatness that He can submit 
without loss to finite conditions of His own mak- 
ing, if He wills. He has done this by creating 
and sustaining the world, and by entering into 
economic and incarnate relations with His crea- 
tures. Strong, pp. 123, 124. 

Question 40. 

What is the Incomprehensibility of God? 
— The incomprehensibility of God signifies that 



80 • The Doctrine of God. 

His nature is too great for man to acquire an 
exhaustive knowledge or understanding of Him 
or of His ways (Exod. XXXIII. 20 : Job XL 
7-9: XXXVL 26: Psa. CXLV. 3: Eccles. XL 
5: Is. XLV. 15: Mic. IV. 12: John I. 18: 
Rom. XL 33, 34: I. Tim. VI. 16: I. John IV. 12). 
Hooker's Ec. Pol, I. 2. 2: Pearson De Deo, XIII, 
pp. 128-136: S. Tkos. Sum. Th. I. 12; Suarez 
Sum. Tract I. lib. 2. c. 5-31. 

2. It should not be supposed, however, that 
no knowledge of God is possible. We have a 
true and adequate knowledge and understanding 
of God which will be greater, although not ex- 
haustive, hereafter. There is a true theologia 
viatorum et % beatorum. Petav. De Dog., T. 1. lib 
7 : Suarez c. 8-30. 

3. The possibility of revelation depends upon 
the fact that God is apprehensible and at least 
partially comprehensible (John XVII. 3: I. Cor. 
II. 9, 10: XIII. 12: I. John III. 2.) Martensen, 

§45. 

Question 41. 

how do we form our idea of an infinite god ? 
— We form our idea of an infinite God (a.) by 
way of negation, denying all external limitation: 



The Divine Nature. 81 

(b.) by way of eminence, ascribed to Him the 
highest degree of every excellence: (c.) by way 
of causality , inferring the character of His attrib- 
utes from the character of His works. Hodge's 
Syst. Theol. L 339. 

2. Our ideas of God are necessarily anthro- 
pomorphic. Man was made in the image of God 
and after His likeness (Gen. I. 26, 27). If man 
is like God in any respect, in that respect God is 
like i man. There is a true anthropomorphism. 
False anthropomorphism arises from forgetting 
that man is not a complete image of God, but 
inferior to him. The higher cannot be adequately 
interpreted by means of the lower, but the lower 
is properly interpreted by the higher. A. Moore's 
Science and the Faith, pp. 50-53: Hodge's Out- 
lines, pp. 131-133: Forbes' Nic. Creed, pp. 41, 42. 

3. Holy Scripture uses much language about 
God which is metaphorical (Gen. VI. 6, 7: Exod. 
XXXIII. 11, 20: Deut. XXIX. 20: II. Sam. XXII. 
9, 16: II. Chron. XVI. 9: Psa. XVIII. 9: XCV. 10: 
Isa. LII. 10: Jer. XV. 6). False anthropomor- 
phism interprets such language literally, and 
attributes body, parts, and passions to God. To 
do so is to violate the rule of Biblical interpreta- 

6 



82 The Doctrine of God, 

tion that one passage should not be so interpreted 
as to conflict with another. Pearson De Deo,. 
IV. p. 37. 

Question 42. 

What ake some of the most important 
Names of God in Holy Scripture? — Some of 
the most important Names of God in Holy 
Scripture, are Elohim, Jehovah, Adonai, Fathei% 
and the threefold Name. Hodge's Outlines, pp. 
134, 135: Owen's Dog. Theol. ch. 2, § 14: S. Thos. 
Sum. Th. I. 13: Petav. De Dog. T. 1. lib. 8. ch. 
6-9: Suarez Sum., Tr. 1, lib. 2. ch. 32: 

2. Elohim is a plural noun, used in the first, 
chapter of Genesis and in many other places. It 
signifies the Mighty One, and is employed where 
the creative power and omnipotence of God are 
described or implied. Its plural form may be 
interpreted as a plural of majesty, but most truly 
as an adumbration of the plural personality of 
God. Liddon's Bamp. Lee, pp. 49-51. 

3. Jehovah signifies the self-existence and 
eternal unchangeableness of God. It is the in- 
communicable Name, which the Jews never pro- 
nounced, but read as if it were Adonai. In the 
A. V. it is translated Lord, and printed in capitals. 



The Divine Nature. 83 

It occurs frequently in conjunction with Elohim, 
when the phrase is translated Lokd God. 

4. Adokai signifies Lord, expressing possession 
and dominion over all. Like Elohim it occurs in 
the plural. 

5. Father signifies the Producer of all 
things and involves the ideas of authority and 
providence derived from that relation. God is 
Father of all things as their Creator, and of men 
as their personal Governor ; but especially of 
baptized Christians, who have been mystically 
united with His Only-Begotten, and made His 
children par excellence by adoption and grace. 
This Name is also specially applied to the First 
Person of the Blessed Trinity as the unoriginate 
source of the Godhead. Pearson on the Creed, 
pp. 45-50, 52-74, espec. pp. 73, 74. 

6. The most perfect Name of God is that of 
the Blessed Trinity — The Father, The Son, 
and the Holy Ghost, which Name is one and 
singular, though threefold in its articulation. It 
expresses the internal and personal distinctions in 
the Godhead, and the eternal relations which are 
involved in them. Mason's Faith of the Gospel, 
ch. 2, §2. . 



84 The Doctrine of God. 

7. The Names of God constitute one of five 
ways by which Holy Scripture reveals God to us. 
These ways are the following, (a.) by His Names: 
(b.) by the works which they ascribe to Him: (c.) 
by the attributes which they predicate of Him: 
(d.) by the worship of Him which they prescribe : 
(e.) by the revelation of "the fulness of the God- 
head bodily, 1 ' in Christ. Hodge's Outlines, p. 134. 

Question 43. 

What ake Divine Attributes ? — Divine at- 
tributes are certain true and distinct predicates, 
which our knowledge of God, however derived, 
enables us to apply to Him. Owen's Dog. Th. ch. 
4 , §2: Pearson De Deo y IV. pp. 37-41: Schouppe's 
EL Th. Dog. Tr. V. §§61-84. 

2. To discuss the Divine Attributes in detail 
is to analyze the contents of our knowledge of 
the Divine nature. 

3. The Divine attributes are true predicates, 
and not simply " man's modes of apprehending 
God." They are "objective determinations in 
His revelation, and as such are rooted in His in- 
most essence." Martensen, §46. 

4. The Divine Attributes express distinct 



The Divine Nature. 8 



D 



perfections in the Divine essence. They do not 
indeed differ in re } as if the essence of God could 
be divided, but in ratione, which means that the 
Divine attributes are logical distinctions rather 
than ontological, although necessary and ground- 
ed in the eternal and immutable essence of God. 
Hodge's Syst. Theol. I. 373, 374: Forbes' Nic. 
Creed, pp. 38, 39: Pearson, pp. 39, 40. 

5. The Divine attributes are not adequate ex- 
pressions of the Divine nature, but such as can be 
framed in human language. They are true as far 
as they go, and are sufficient for the correct guid- 
ance of our apprehensions. But they indicate 
lines of truth, to the end of which our minds- 
are unable to travel. Mozleij on Predestination,, 
pp. 15-21. 

6. The Divine attributes are ascertained in 
three ways: (a.) by analyzing the idea of infinity 
and absolute perfection: (b.) by inference from 
the character of those Divine operations which 
are observable in the physical and moral world: 
(c.) by studying the indications given in super- 
natural revelation. This last method is the only 
one which secures complete and trustworthy re- 



86 The Doctrine of God. 

suits, and it must be employed to correct and 
supplement the results of other methods. 

7. There are many ways of dividing and 
arranging the Divine attributes. Hodge's Out- 
lines, pp. 137 ,138. We shall consider the nature 
of God (a) according to His essence, as self ex- 
istent, living, perfect, sole and incommunicable : 
(b.) according to His substance, as spiritual and 
immense: (c.) according to His life, as eternal, 
immutable, and eternally active: (d.) according 
to His action, as omnipotent, omniscient, omni- 
present, wise, and morally perfect. The first 
three of these divisions are usually treated under 
the heading " the Nature of God," the last under 
the heading "the Attributes of God." This 
usage is followed here. 

Question 44. 

What is the self-existence of God ? — The 
self-existence of God is that whereby He is with- 
out origin and uncreate. He simply is (Exod. 
III. 14: John VIII. 58), cf. Q. 42. 3. Strong's 
Syst. Theol., pp. 123, 124: Pearson De Deo, V. p. 
47: Mason's Faith of the Gospel, I. 9. 

2. God is not self-caused, but uncaused. His 



The Divine Nature, 87 

being and mode of subsistence is not the product 
of His will, but a fact of His essence. By that 
He is determined since nothing else determines 
Him and He is not indeterminate. S. Thos. Sum. 
Th., I. 3. 4: Pearson De Deo, IV. pp. 35 , 36. 

3. To deny the self-existence of God is to 
deny that He is supreme, for, if He were not 
self-existent, His existence would be caused by 
another, to whom he would be inferior. The 
cosmological argument for the existence of God 
is also an argument for His self -existence. 

4. God is a Living God, for He is the Authoi 
of life to His creatures (Deut. V. 26: Josh. III. 
10: Gen. II. 7: Acts XVII. 25, 28: Col. III. 3), 
and since He is self-existent, He has life in Him- 
self (John I. 4: V. 26). Owen's Dog. TheoL, Ch. 
4, §10: Pearson De Deo, XIV. pp. 137-143: S. 
Thos. Sum. Th.J. 18. 

Question 45. 

What is the perfection of God ? — The 
perfection of God signifies that he comprehends 
within His own essence every excellency in in- 
finite degree. Nothing is lacking according to 
the mode of Divine perfection. S. Thos. Sum. 
Th. I. 4: Jackson, Vol. V } c. IV: Pearson De Deo y 



88 The Doctrine of God. 

VI. pp. 55-60 : VII. pp. 67-73. Petav. De Dog., 
T. 1. lib. 6. ch. 7: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog.,Tr.V. 
§§ 105,-110. 

2. The perfection of God can be argued from 
His infinity, for He Who is without external 
limitation must be perfect in Himself. 

3. All the perfections of every creature have 
God for their Author, and are evidences of His 
perfection. They are not, however, reproductions 
of Divine perfection, but shadows of it. The 
perfection of God is not the totality of creaturely 
perfection, although the cause of it ; but is pecu- 
liar to Himself and simple. "Not all the excel- 
lencies of all (creatures) can so fully represent 
His nature as an ape's shadow doth a man's body. 
But * • ' * infinite variety best sets forth the 
admirable excellency of His indivisible unity. 
* * * * So all plurality be excluded, we express 
His being and perfection best by leaving them, 
as they truly are, without all quantity." Jackson 
pp. 36 , 37: S. Thos. I. 4. 2. 

4. By virtue of His infinite perfection, God 
is self-sufficient. Nothing is wanting to His 
essence which is needed for his blessedness. 
Neither His knowledge, nor his will, nor His 



The Divine Nature. 89 

love, depend upon the existence of the creature, 
but have sufficient scope for their activity in the 
eternal relations subsisting between the Persons 
of the Trinity. Creation is an act of the Divine 
will, not the result of necessity. Strong's Syst. 
Th., pp. 125, 126. 

5. God is the Summum Bonum, the devout 
contemplation and enjoyment of which is the 
true and chief end of man : for, as the infinitely 
Perfect One, and the source of all good, He 
comprehends in His own essence all that is needed 
for our eternal blessedness (Psa. LXXIII. 24-26: 
John XVII. 22, 24). Westminster Cat. Q. 1; S. 
Thos. Sum. Th. I. 6. 1, 2 .'Pearson, pp. 70, 71. 

Question 46. 

What is meant by the unity of God? — 
By the Unity of God is meant (a.) His numerical 
unity, or the fact that He is but one, unus: (b.) 
His integral unity, or the fact that He is indivis- 
ible: (c. ) His uniqueness, or the fact that He 
cannot be classed with any other being in genus 
or species. He is unus et unicus. S. Thos. Sum. 
Th. I. 11: Jackson, Vol. V. pp. 24, 25: Mason I. 
10: Kingdoms God Incarnate, p. 7 : Strong's St/st. 
Theol. p. 125: Owen's Dog. Theol. ch. 4. §6: 



90 The Doctrine of God. 

Forbes 7 Nic. Greed, pp, 25-38: Pearson De Deo, 
XL pp. 109-117. 

2. The integral unity of God does not signify 
the absence of real distinctions in His nature, 
but the absence of divisions simply. His tri- 
personal subsistence is not inconsistent with this. 
Mason I. 10: Strong: 

3. That the Lord our God is One Lord is as- 
serted or implied in every part of Holy Scripture, 
which also bears frequent witness against poly- 
theism or idolatry (Exod. XX. 3: Deut. IV. 35: 
VI. 4: I. Kings XVIII. 27 : Isa. XL1V. 6, 8 et 
seq: XLV. 22: John XVII. 3: Rom. III. 29, 30: 
I. Cor. VIII. 4-6: I. Tim. I. 17: II. 5). It is also 
argued (a.) from His simplicity. The individual- 
ity and the essence of God are identical, but that 
which constitutes the individuality of a being 
can be but one: (b.) from the infinity of His per- 
fection and His supremacy. There can be but 
one most perfect and supreme: (c.) from the tel- 
eological unity of the world. S. Thos. I. 11. 3: 
Owen: Mason: Pearson, pp. 114, 115. 

4. No other being can be comprehended in 
the same category with God. This fact does not 
preclude the existence of other beings, but of 



The Divine Nature. 91 

other Divine beings. Moreover all other beings 
are dependent upon, and owe their existence to, 
the One, with Whom nothing can be co-ordinated 
(Exod. IX. 14 : Deut. XXXIII. 26 : II. Sam. VII. 
22 : Isa. XL. 18-25: XL VI. 5, 9: Jer. X. 6: Matt. 
XIX. 17). Domers Christian Doc, I. 230-234: 
Jackson. 

Question 47. 

What is the Simplicity of God ? — The Sim- 
plicity of God signifies (a.) His spiritual essence 
(John IV. 24): (b.) that He is pure form: (c.) 
the identity of His essence and attributes with 
Himself. S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 3: Forbes' Kic. 
Creed, pp. 40,41: Owen's Dog. Th., Ch. 4. §4: 
Pearson De Deo, V. pp. 43-53: Petav. De Dog., 
T. 1. lib. 2, c. 1, 2: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. 
V. §§96-104: Perrone Prael. de Deo, Vol. 2. Pars. 
2. ch. 1. 

2. That God is incorporeal, and therefore 
without parts or extension is argued because (a.) 
He is the Prime Mover of all things ; but bodies, 
in themselves are inert: (b.) He is the most 
eminent of beings ; but the eminence of bodies 
is entirely due to the life which is in them. 
This life is not corporeal. S. Thos. I. 3. 1: 
Mason I. 8: Pearson, pp. 47-51: Schouppe, §101. 



92 • The Doctrine of God. 

3. The spirituality of the Divine essence 
signifies more than the absence of corporeity. 
It means, positively, that attribute by virtue of 
which, God is a living God. Because the Spirit is 
life, it can assume that which is not spirit into 
hypostatic union with itself. The Incarnation 
was such an event (Q. 44. 4). 

4. By form, forma, is meant the actuality 
of a thing; by matter, maierja, its potential 
principle. God is pure form ; actual but not 
potential. He is, and always has been, in essence 
what He can be. There is no foundation (prior) 
for what He is. The distinction between power 
and energy, 8vvajj.i$ uai evepyeia, is misleading 
in connection with God. He is absolute energy, 
par us actus. S. Thos.,1. 3. 2: Pearson, p. 46: 
Schouppe, §103. 

5. The attributes of God, as we have seen 
(Q. 43. 3, 4), do not differ from each other in re, 
but in ratione, although they are true distinctions 
rooted in his inmost essence. His goodness is a 
distinct reality, as is also His immutability: but 
the two are one, ontologically speaking, and 
inseparable. Furthermore, God is not merely 
good, but more exactly, He is goodness and the 



The Divine Nature. 93 

source of it. When we speak of the Divine 
Nature, we speak of the Divine Being (I. John 
IV. 7, 8: I. Cor. I. 24). S. Thos., I. 3. 3, 4, 6, 7: 
Jackson, pp. 38-42: Pearson, p. 52. 

Question 48. 

What is the Immensity of God ? — The 
Immensity of God is that Divine attribute, of 
which spatial relations are the finite shadow ; 
or, Divine infinity as contemplated from the 
point of view of space (Jerem. XXIII. 23). 
Athan. Sijmb: Jackson, V. 42-59: Strong' s Sijst. 
Theol.,p. 131: jSchouppe El. Th. Bog., Tr. V. 118- 
121: Forbes' Nic. Creed, pp. 50 ; 51: Pearson De 
Deo, VIII. pp. 78-86: Suarez Sum,, Tr. 1. lib. 2.c2. 

2. By virtue of His immensity, God is essenti- 
ally present in all substances (Q. 52. 4-6), but is 
not comprehended in created things. He is thus 
both immanent and transcendent (Deut. IV. 39 : 
cf. w. I. Kings VIII. 27). S. Gregory (in Psa. 
139) says, u Deus est intra omnia, non inclusus ; 
extra omnia, non exclusus; supra omnia, non 
elatus." To which may be added, u infra omnia, 
non depressus." A. Moore 7 s, Science and the 
Faith, p. XLIII. 

3. Space is a relation of created substances 



94 The Doctrine of God. 

which came into existence with them. The 
relations between God and space are therefore 
voluntary to Him, springing from His act of 
creation. 

Question 49. 

What is the Eternity of God ? — The 
Eternity of God is that Divine attribute of which 
temporal relations are the finite shadow ; or, 
Divine infinity as contemplated from the point of 
view of time (Exod. III. 14: Deut. XXXIII. 27: 
Psa. XC. 2-4: XCIII. 2: Isa. XLVIII. 12: LVII. 
15: Lam. V. 19: Mic. V. 2: Rom. I. 20: Ephes. 
III. 11: I. Tim. I. 17: VI. 16: II. Pet. III. 8: 
Rev. I. 8: XXII. 13). Jackson, V. 60-78: 8. 
Thos. Sum. Th., I. 10: 8. Aug. Con/., XL 
10-31: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. V. 112-116: 
Mason I. 11: Forbes' Nic. Creed, pp. 51, 52: 
Owen's Dog. Th. ch. 4. §8: Pearson De Deo. X. 
pp. 96-108: Petav. De Dog., T.l.lib. S.c. 3-6: Saarez, 
Tr. 1, lib. 2. ch. 4. 

2. The word Eternal has three uses: (a.) 
with beginning but without end — life eternal of 
the saints: (b.) without beginning or end but 
unnecessary — the creative act of God: (c.) with- 
out beginning or end and necessary. The last is 



The Divixe Nature. 95 

peculiar to the life of God, and is not possible 
elsewhere, even for the saints. Schouppe, 112. 

3. Time is a relation of created things and 
of finite events. When of things, it expresses 
their duration; when of events, it is the measure 
of their succession. But Divine eternity is an 
idea which transcends duration and excludes all 
but logical succession. Boethius and the Schol- 
astics describe it as "Interminibilis vitae tota 
simul et perfecta possession'' S. Thos. I. 10.1: 
Hookers Ec. Pol, V. 69. % 2. 

4. Time and eternity have been illustrated by 
the circumference of a circle and its center. The 
center corresponds to every division and motion 
of the circumference, without being divisible or 
movable itself. There is a succession of parts in 
circumference, but none in the center. The cir- 
cumference may be indefinitely expanded, yet the 
center will correspond to a larger circle still. Yet 
eternity is neither an extension nor a modifica- 
tion of time. Time is nunc volans, eternity nunc 
stans. Strong's Syst. Th., p. 131: Schouppe, 
§114. 

5. The Eternal One has no involuntary rela- 
tions to time, but freely enters into temporal re- 



96 The Doctrine of God. 

lations by virtue of creation. He is therefore 
said to /ore-know and to jpre-destinate. 

6. God is immutable — free from the vicissi- 
tudes of change, although He enters into relations 
with mutability. This latter truth justifies the 
metaphorical allusions in Holy Scripture to Di- 
vine providence, and the delay of the Incarnation 
until the fulness of time (Num. XXIII. 19: I. 
Sam. XV. 29: Psa. XXXIII. 11: Eccles. III. 14: 
Mai. III. 6: Heb. 1. 12: VI. 17: XIII. 8: Jas. 1. 17). 
Nicene Anathema: Forbes' Nic. Creed , pp. 47,48: 
Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. V. §§124-131 : Mar- 
tensen's Dog., §48: Owen's Dog. Th., ch. 4. §7 : 
Pearson De Deo, IX. pp. 87-95: S. Thos. Stem. 
Th., I.9:Petav. De Dog., T. 1. lib. 3. c. 1,2: 
Strong's Syst. Th. pp. 124,125. 

7. God is described in Holy Scripture as 
alone Immoktal (Dent. XXXII. 40: I. Tim. VI. 
16.: Rev. IV. 9). By this is meant that He is not 
subject, in His essence, either to development or 
corruption. The saints are subject to both in 
this life, and to development in the world to 
come (I. Cor. XV. 36: II. Cor. III. 18: Heb. IX. 
27). Their immortality is also derived, while 
that of God is underived (Q. 44.4). Martensen, 
§48. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. 

Question 50. 

What is the Omnipotence of God? — The 
Omnipotence of God signifies (a.) His infinite 
energy and freedom to do all that is consistent 
with His nature: (b.) His sovereignty over all 
that is or can be done. (Gen. XVII. 1: XVIII. 
14:Psa. CXV.3: CXXXV.6: Jer. XXXII. 17: 
Matt. XIX. 26: Mark X. 27: Luke I. 37: Ephes. I. 
11, 19-22: III. 20: Heb. I. 3: Rev. XV. 3). Pear- 
son on the Creed, pp. 75-83: S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 
25: Schouppe El. Th. Dog., Tr. V. §§ 161-165: 
Mason, I. 12: Forbes' Nic-Creed, pp. 48, 49, 91- 
93: Martensen's Dog., §49: Hodge's Syst. Th., I. 
406-413: Petav. De Dog., T. 1. lib. 5. c. 5-11. 

2. God is not tied to the use of means, nor 
to any particular use of them, by any principle 
which is external to Himself (Matt. III. 9). He 
cannot, however, do anything (a.) which is in- 

7 



98 The Doctrine of God. 

consistent with His own holiness (II. Tim. II. 
13: Heb. VI. 18): (b.) which would involve a 
change in His own nature or purposes: (c.) 
which would be self-contradictory and absurd; 
e. g. to make a fact not a fact, or to draw a 
shorter line between two points than a straight 
one. 

3. By virtue of His sovereignty, all creaturely 
actions, even when free, are done by His per- 
mission and with power supplied by Him. Evil 
actions, though designed to thwart His will, are 
overruled by Him to the accomplishment of it. 

4. The exercise of Divine energy is twofold: 
(a.) internal action of generation and spiration, 
which is necessary: (b.) external action, which is 
voluntary and concerned with originating, pre- 
serving, energizing, and developing, and govern- 
ing created things. Schouppe, El. Th. Dog. ; 
Tr. V. §134. 

5. Both of these actions are eternal and 
immutable, but the latter has temporal and 
mutable relations and aspects, owing to the finite 
nature which has been imposed upon its results. 
Thus the action of God is often described in Holy 
Scripture as if temporal — not in its nature, but 
in its creature ward relations (Q. 51. 4). 



The Divine Attributes. 99 

Question 51. 

In what ways is the Will of God dis- 
tinguished? — The will of God is distinguished 
as (a.) the will of good pleasure: (b.) the will of 
the signs. The will of good pleasure is still 
further distinguished as (a.) antecedent and con- 
sequent: (b.) absolute and conditional. Schouppe, 
El. Th. Dog., Tr. V. 155-160: S. Thos. Sum, 
Th.,L 19: Forbes' Nic. Creed, p. 47, 56-61: 
Owen's Dog. Th., ch. 4. §13: Pearson De Deo, XX, 
XXI. pp. 206-231: Petav. De Dog., T. 1. lib. 5. 
c. 1-4: Liddon's Some Elements, pp. 56,57, 184-190. 

2. The will of God, strictly speaking, is sim- 
plex and without real distinction. But, as con- 
templated from a temporal point of view, it ap- 
pears multiplex. 

3. The will of good pleasure, also called in- 
trinsic, is the volition itself whereby God wills 
any thing or does not will it (Psa. CXV. 3). The 
will of the signs, also called extrinsic, and met- 
aphorical, is not, strictly speaking, the will of 
God at all, but its external declaration to us 
(Matt. VII. 21). 

4. By His antecedent will God wills any thing 



100 The Doctrine of God. 

secundum se ; without reference to particular cir- 
cumstances; e. g. the salvation of all men (II. 
Tim. II. 4). By His consequent will God wills 
a thing in view of circumstances foreseen ; e. g. 
the everlasting punishment of obstinate sinners 
(Rom. IX. 22). Strictly speaking, there can be 
no temporal development or modification of God's 
will of good pleasure. But, since His will is ac- 
complished in time, it exhibits to us the relations 
of antecedence and consequence. 

5. The absolute will of God depends upon no 
external conditions. Thus, He willed to create. 
His conditional will depends upon some action on 
the part of His free creatures. Thus He wills 
the future glory of those whom He has called in 
Christ, if they make their calling and election 
sure. The relation between the will of God and 
the will of man, is mysterious. The former is 
eternal and irreversible, the latter real and free, 
within its proper limits. The appearance of con- 
tradiction in this, arises from the finiteness of 
our understandings, and the necessity of contem- 
plating the infinite and immutable from a finite 
and mutable point of view (Q. 53.4). This 
bears upon Divine Predestination, which will be 



The Divine Attributes. 101 

discussed in connection with the doctrine of 
grace. 

6. The will of the signs is divided into five 
parts : (a.) commandment: (b. ) prohibition: (c.) 
permission: (d.) counsel: (e.) operation and ex- 
ample. The latter includes the natural and su- 
pernatural orders, so far as we know them, and 
the life of Christ. 

Question 52. 

What is the Omniscience of God? — The 
Omniscience of God is His infinite knowledge of 
all things which can be objects of knowledge 
(Psa. XXXIII. 13, 14: CXXXIX. 1-16: CXLVII. 
4, 5: Isa. XL VI. 9, 10: Matt. VI. 8: X. 29, 30: 
Acts II. 23: XV. 18: Kom. XI. 33: Heb. IV. 12, 
> 13). Strong's Syst. Theol, p. 133: Forbes' Nic. 
Creed, pp. 52-56: Owen's Dog. Theol., eh. 4. §11: 
Pearson De Deo, XV-XIX., pp. 149-205: S. Thos. 
Sum. Th., 1.14: Petav. De Dog., T.l. lib. 4: 
Schouppe, Tr. V. §§136-154: Mason's Faith of 
the Gospel, I. 11. 

2. Divine knowledge is (a.) intuitive, without 
mental process: (b. ) immediate, independent of 
external media: (c.) eternal, without temporal 



102 The Doctrine of God. 

limitation: (d.) actual, not a mere power of 
knowing: (e.) universal, including all things in 
its range, real or possible, internal or external to 
Himself, general or particular: (i.) perfect, without 
possibility of development or forgetfulness. 

3. God knows all things, past, present, and 
future, as such, for He has created and entered 
into real relations with the temporal. But His 
knowledge of them all is simultaneous. He fore- 
knows, but there is no temporal interval between 
His act of knowing and the event known. 

4. God also knows things everywhere, and 
their spatial relations, but there is no spatial 
separation between Himself and what He knows. 
The Omnipresence of God is deduced from (a.) 
His omniscience (Psa. CXI1I. 5, 6): (b.) His 
immensity (Jer. XXIII. 23, 24): (c.) His op- 
erations (Psa. CXXXIX. 7-13). Forbes' Nic. 
Creed, p. 51: Owen's Dog. Th., ch. 4. §9: Pearson 
De Deo, VIII. pp. 76-86: S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 8: 
Petav. De Dog., T. 1. lib. 3. c. 7-10: Strong's 
Syst. Th., p. 132. < 

5. The Divine omnipresence is (&) free, ior 
the created things which it presupposes came into 
existence by the will of God: (b.) actual and not 



The Divine Attributes. 103 

potential merely: (c.) penetrative, hut not diffusive 
or expansive: (d.) indivisible and entire in every 
thing. 

" Though God extends beyond creation's rim, 
Each smallest atom holds the whole of Him." 

6. If God were omnipresent simply, com- 
munion with Him would be impossible. But He 
has revealed to us special and limited modes of 
presence, according to which He wills to be present 
to His creatures. He is present (a.) in glory, 
to the adoring hosts of heaven (Isa. VI. 1-3: 
Rev. VII. 9-12): (b.) with efficiency, in the 
natural order (Nah. I. 3-5): (c.) providentially, 
in the affairs of men (Psa. LXVIII. 7, 8): (d.) 
attentively, to those who seek him (Matt. XVIII. 
19, 20: Acts XVII. 27): (e.) judicially, to the 
consciences of the wicked (Gen. III. 8: Psa. 
LXVIII. 1, 2): (f.) bodily, in the Incarnate Son: 
(Col. II. 9): (g.) mystically, in the Church of 
Christ (Ephes. II. 12-22): (h.) officially, with 
His Ministers (Matt. XXVIII. 19, 20): (i.) 
sacramentally and adorably, in the Holy Euchar- 
ist (John VI. 56: Luke XXII. 19, 20). Marten- 
sen's Dog., §48. 



104 The Doctrine of God. 

Question 53. 

What is the Wisdom of God? — The Wisdom 
of God is His absolute infallibility of judgment, 
by virtue of which He provides perfectly for all 
things and cannot err in any question of action, 
whether that action springs from Himself or the 
creature, and whether it is past, present, or future 
(Psa. CIV. 24: Prov. VIII. 11-31: I. Cor. I. 18- 
30: I. Ephes. III. 10: Jas. I./5). Schouppe's El. 
Th.Dog., Tr. V. §§167-170: Martensen's Dog., 
§50. 

2. The wisdom of God combines His omni- 
potence and omniscience. It is His teleological 
knowledge, whereby He designs all things, and 
over rules the course of events to the furtherance 
of His own ends. This action is called the 
Providence of God (Gen. XX. 6: L. 20: Exod. 
XII. 36: II. Sam. XVI. 10: XXIV. 1: Job XXX- 
VII: Psa. XXXIII. 12-22: CIV: CXXXV. 5-7: 
Prov. XVI. 1: XIX. 21: Jer. X. 23: Matt. VI. 
25-32: X. 30: Rom. XI. 32-36: Ephes. II. 10: 
Phil. II. 13). Martensen, §50: S. Thos. Sum. Th. y 
I. 22: Schouppe, El. Th. Dog., Tr. V. 195-201: 
Strong's Syst. Theol., pp. 207-220: Forbes' Nic. 
Creed, pp. 61-63: Hooker's Ec. Pol., I. 3. 4: 



The Divine Attributes. 105 

Pearson De Deo, XXII. 232-242: Petav. De Dog., 
T. 1. lib. 8. c. 1-5. 

3. The providence of God is distinguished 
as general and particular, the former having to 
do with the teleological government of the uni- 
verse as a whole, the latter with provisions for its 
minutest details — e. g. the exigencies arising from 
the free actions of men. Liddon's Some Ele- 
ments, pp. 192-194. 

4. The relations between Divine sovereignty 
and creaturely freedom, as has been said (Q. 51.5), 
are inscrutable ; but we know that God and man 
co-operate in every human action, whether good 
or evil, in such wise that the integrity of each is 
preserved and the holiness of God uncontamin- 
ated. God supplies the power in evil conduct, but 
is not so much its Author as its over ruling 
cause. Strong's Syst. Th., pp. 209, 210: 219, 
220. 

5. The prayers of men are real moral forces, 
/ore-seen and/br-seen by God from the beginning, 

and used as His instruments in accomplishing 
His designs. If the contents of a prayer are in- 
consistent with His will, it is none the less a genu- 
ine moral force, but it will be over ruled to sub- 



106 The Doctrine of God. 

serve Divine ends. Strong, pp. 215-218: Lid- 
don's Some Elements, pp. 184-190. 

6. The wisdom of God is displayed, not only 
in His ordinary providence, but, pre-eminently, in 
the Redemption of men from sin, and in the 
judgment of those who neglect His grace. 



CHAPTER IX. 
THE MORAL ATTRIBUTES. 

Question 54. 

What is the Mokal Perfection of God ? — 
The Moral Perfection of God signifies (a.) the 
absolute integrity of each and every moral attri- 
bute in all Divine action: (b.) the infinite intens- 
ity of each attribute. 

2. No Divine attribute may be emphasized 
at the expense of another. For example, God is 
infinitely merciful and infinitely just in all His 
actions. His mercy may be most apparent, in His 
forgiveness of sinners, and His justice in the rep- 
robation of the obstinate ; but we may not sup- 
pose that justice is waived or curtailed in the one 
case, nor mercy shortened in the other. S. Thos., 
I. 21. 4. 

3. The Divine character is as inscrutable 
as His essence. It is therefore impossible 
for us to discover or explain the harmony which 



108 The Doctrine of God. 

lies behind the various, and apparently oppos- 
ing, manifestations of His moral attributes (Q.40). 

Question" 55. 

What is the Goodness of God ? — The 
Goodness of God is that attribute by virtue of 
which God is communicative of what is desirable 
(Psa. LXV. 4: CXLV. 7-16: Neh. IX. 35: Jer. 
XXXI. 12, 14: Zech. IX. 17: Matt. V. 45). 
Martensen's Dog., §50: Strong's Syst. Th.,p. 138 
(b.): Hodge's Syst. Th., I. 427-436: Pearson De 
Deo, VII. pp. 73, 74: Martensen's Dog., §§50, 51: 
Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. V. §§173, 177, 179- 
194. 

2. By virtue of His perfection, God compre- 
hends in Himself everything which is desirable, 
and is the source of all good to others. 

3. Ad intra, the goodness of the Father 
moved Him to beget His Beloved Son, to Whom 
He eternally communicates His Own self-existent 
essence. By virtue of the same attribute, the 
Father and the Son eternally communicate their 
common essence to the Holy Ghost; and all the 
Blessed Three eternally communicate of their 
richness to each other. This communication per- 



The Moral Attributes. 109 

tains to the Divine essence and is both eternal 
and necessary. 

4. Ad extra, the goodness of God moves 
Him to create and communicate being and life 
to finite things, external to His Own essence, in 
order that He may impart to them such good 
gifts as they can receive. This communication 
is voluntary, and is determined as to its results 
by finite conditions imposed by the Creator Him- 
self. The creatures are made indigentia Dei, and 
satisfaction of the need is made possible. Pear- 
son, p. 74: Martensen, §50. 

5. The goodness of God ad extra includes 
His Benevolence, by which is meant u the con- 
stant will of God to communicate felicity to His 
creatures, according to their conditions and His 
Own wisdom." (Nah. I. 7: Psa. CXLV. 9). 
Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. V. §173. 

6. Because of His benevolence, God has de- 
termined, by His will of good pleasure, to alleviate 
the miseries of this life which have been caused 
by the sins of the creature, and to employ such 
means for the Salvation of mankind as are con- 
sistent with His Own holiness and creaturely re- 
sponsibility. Schouppe's, El. Th., Dog., Tr. V. 
§§177-194. 



110 The Doctrine of God. 

Question" 56. 

What is the Loye of God? — The Love of 
God is that appetitive, but passionless and 
changeless movement of His essence whereby He 
desires to gather into union with Himself all 
who are good. S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 20: Mar- 
tensen's Dog., §51: Strong's Syst. Theol., pp. 127 , 
137: Mason's Faith of the Gospel, 1.14. 

2. Love pre-supposes a personal subject lov- 
ing, and discharges itself towards a personal 
object. Martensen. Ad intra, these condi- 
tions are satisfied within the Divine essence. 
The Father loves His Son, and is loved by the 
Son, and the Holy Ghost is the bond of Divine 
love. Love is in fact the moral expression of the 
Divine unity, and is the focus of all Divine at- 
tributes. God is Love (I. John IV. 16: John 
XVII. 26: Ephes. II. 4, 7). . 

3. Ad extra, the goodness of God moved Him 
to create objects on whom He might pour forth 
His love. He loves all His creatures because the 
nature which he has imparted to them is good. 
But so far as they depart from righteousness and 
corrupt their natures, He hates them (Mai. I. 3: 



The Moral Attributes. Ill 

Rom. IX. 13). Thus He loves sinners as crea- 
tures, but hates them as sinners (Deut. VII. 7, 8: 
X. 15: Job. VII. 17: Isa. XLIX. 15, 16: LIV. 10: 
Jer. XXXI. 3: Hos. XI. 1, 4: Zeph. III. 17: Mai. 
I. 1: John III. 16: Rom. VIII. 35, 38, 39: Ephes. 
I. 4: III. 19: II. Thess. II. 16: I. John III. 1, 16: 
IV. 7 et seq.). S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 20. 2 ad 
quart. 

4. The Mercy of God is that characteristic of 
his love which moves Him to plan the salvation of 
sinners, that they may become worthy of union 
with Himself. If they take advantage of His 
salvation, He ceases to hate them and unites 
them to Himself in everlasting love. To save 
them, He goes so far as to give His Beloved Son 
to die for them (Gen. XIX. 16: Exod. XX. 6: 
XXXIV. 6, 7: Num. XIV. 18: Dent. IV. 31: 
Judges 11.18: X. 15, 16: I. Chron. XV. 34: II. 
Chron. XXX. 9: Neh. IX. 17, 31: Psa. XXV. 7- 
10: CIII. 2-17: CXXXVI. 1-26: Isa. XXX. 18: 
LXIII. 9: Jer. III. 12: Lam. III. 22, 23: Dan. VI. 
9: Joel. II. 13: Luke I. 50: John III. 16: Rom. V. 
8: Ephes. II. 4, 7: Jas. V. 11: II. Pet. III. 9, 15). 
S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 21. 3, 4: Strong's Syst. 
Theol., p. 137: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., §§207, 
209. 



112 The Doctrine of God. 

5. The dispensation of God's mercy is em- 
bodied in a kingdom of Grace, wherein every help 
and sanctifying instrument which the wisdom of 
God has devised, is gathered and administered. 
But the grace of God is not confined to the 
Church. It is imparted to all men in various 
measures, under different conditions, and with 
various possibilities. 

Question 57. 

What is the Holiness of God ? — The 
Holiness of God is His self affirming purity ; 
the attribute which guards the distinction between 
God and the creature. It is the ground of rever- 
ence and adoration (Exod. III. 5: XV. 11: XIX. 
10-16: Isa. VI. 3, 5-7: Psa. XCIX. 9: II. Cor. VII. 
1: I. Thess. III. 13: IV. 7: Heb. XII. 29). 
Martensen's Dog., §51: Strong's Syst. Th., pp. 
128-130: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. V. 174- 
176: Mason's Faith of the Gospel, I. 13. 

2. The Holiness of God involves ( a. ) freedom 
aud separation from moral evil: (b.) positive 
moral perfection. God is the source of holiness 
to His creatures, and can only be seen or ap- 
proached by the holy. Schouppe: Pearson De 
Deo, VII. p. 73: Petav. De Dog., T. 1. lib. 6. c. 6. 



The Moral Attributes. 113 

3. The Righteousness of God is His relative 
Holiness, by virtue of which, His treatment of 
the creature conforms to the purity of His nature. 
It is legislative Holiness, or the revelation of 
Divine Holiness in the form of moral require- 
ment (Matt. V. 48: I. Pet. I. 16). Strong's 
Syst. Th., pp. 138-140. 

4. The Truth of God involves that all His 
manifestations, whether natural or supernatural, 
should be consistent with Himself and each other. 
Earlier and more rudimentary indications are not 
contradicted, but are illuminated, by later and 
fuller knowledge (Isa.XL.8: Matt.V.18: John III. 
33: XIV. 6, 17: Rom. I. 25: III. 4: I. John V. 
6). Strong, p. 137: Schouppe, Tr. V. 202-205. 

5. The Faithfulness of God secures the 
fulfilment of His promises, which are based, not 
upon what we are or have done, but upon what 
Christ is and has done. Our sins do not invali- 
date them so long as we fulfil the conditions of 
repentance and good works (Num. XXIII. 19: 
I. Cor. I. 9: II. Cor. I. 20: I. Thess. V. 24: Tit. 
I. 2: Heb. VI. 18: I. Pet. IV. 19). Strong, p. 137. 



8 



114 The Doctrine of God. 

Question 58. 

What is the Justice of God? — The Justice 
of God is " His constant and efficacious will of 
dispensing rewards and punishments to creatures 
according to the merits of each" (Gen. XVIII. 
25: Psa. VII. 9-11: XVIII. 24: LXXXIX. 14: 
CXIX, 37: Jer. XXIII. 5: Rom. II. 2-11: I. Pet. 
I. 17: Jas. II. 12 et seq: Rev. XIX. 11: XX. 13). 
S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 21. 1 ; 2, 4: Schouppe's EL 
Th. Dog., Tr. V. 208 7 210. 

2. The Justice of God is the counterpart of 
His righteousness, and is sometimes identified 
with it (Rom. III. 26); Justice being the founda- 
tion of Divine Law, righteousness the basis of 
Divine judgment passed ,upon failure to fulfil the 
law (Heb. X. 30, 31). Strong's Syst. Th., p. 138. 

3. The merits of the creature do not, in the 
first instance, arise from his own efforts, but from 
the meritorious passion of Christ. But the blood 
of Christ is the seal of an everlasting covenant, 
by virtue of which the members of Christ are en- 
abled to do the will of God and deserve His favor 
(Rom. IV. 25: Heb. XIII. 20, 21). " God re- 
wards Christ's work for us and in us" — not, in 
the first instance, on account of man's works, but, 



The Moral Attributes. 115 

none the less, according to them (cf. Luke XVII. 
7-10, w. Acts X. 34, 25: and II. John 8: Tit. III. 
4-7, w. Rom. II. 6). 

4. The judgments of God are without respect 
of persons, being simply the expression of His 
righteousness in the presence of moral evil ; — 
not vindictive, but vindicative (Rom. II. 11). 
Strong, p. 139 (e). 

Question 59. 

What is the Blessedness of God? — The 
Blessedness of God is the richness and joy of His 
life, arising from the internal relations of the 
Divine Persons, and also from the relations sub- 
sisting between God and His saints (Psa. CXLVII. 
11: CXLIX. 4: Prov. XV. 8: Isa. LXII. 5: John 
XVII. 5). S.Thos. Sum. Th.,1.26: Marten- 
sen's Dog., §51. 

2. The Blessedness of God is the reflection 
of Divine love, both within the Trinity and in 
the Kingdom of God. The latter is conditioned ; 
arising from the creative activity of God, and His 
condescension revealed in the Incarnation and the 
descent of the Holy Ghost. 



116 The Doctrine of God. 

3. The pity and grief and anger of God, 
caused by the sins of men, do not interfere with 
His Blessedness ; for, where sin abounds, His 
grace abounds much more and renders the Divine 
dispensation of love fruitful in glory (Luke XV. 
7, 10, 22-24: Rom. V. 20, 21). 

4. The response of man to the grace of God 
finds articulate expression in the worship of the 
faithful; their Eucharistic Oblations here, and the 
heavenly worship hereafter, which those Oblations 
anticipate (Rev. VII. 9-17). 



CHAPTER X. 

THE TRINITY. 

Question 60. 

What is the doctrine of the Trinity ? — 
The doctrine of the Trinity, as stated in our arti- 
cles, is, that, There is but one living and true God. 

And in the unity of this Godhead 

there be Three Persons, of one substance, power, 
and eternity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost. See Forbes' 39 Arts., I: Nic. Creed, pp. 
70-87 : Browne's 39 Arts., I: Newman's Avians, c. 
II. §2-4: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. VI: Petav. 
De Dogmatibus, Tom. 2 et seq: Liddon's Bamp. 
Lee. I. §1: S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 27-43: Kingdoms 
God Incarnate, pp. 11-16: Mason's Faith of the 
Gospel, c. 2: Waterland's Works, 1st 3 vols: 
Hookev's Ec. Pol, 1. 2. 2: V. 51. 1: Richey's Truth 
and Counter Truth, ch. 1: S. Augustine on the 
Trinity. 

2. The Athanasian Creed says, that we wor- 
ship one God in Trinity , and Trinity in Unity ; 



118 The Doctrine of God. 

neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the 
substance. For there is one Person of the Father, 
another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost; 
but the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost is all one, the glory equal, the 
majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is 
the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father 
* * ' the Son ' * * the Holy Ghost Incarnate 
' ' ' incomprehensible ' * * eternal ' ' ' al- 
mighty ' ' ' God • ■ ' Lord, and yet not three 
Lords but one Lord. For, like as we are com- 
pelled by the Christian verity to acknoivledge every 
Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are ive 
forbidden by the Catholic religion to say there be 
three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made 
of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is 
of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but be- 
gotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of 
the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, 
but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three 
Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, 
not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none 
is afore or after other, none is greater or less than 
another; but the whole Three Persons are co-eter- 
nal together and co-equal. So that in all things, 
as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and Trinity 
in Unity is to be worshipped. 



The Trinity. 119 



3. This doctrine is involved in the Baptismal 
formula, and has been held in its integrity by the 
Church from the beginning. But its fuller anal- 
ysis and statement was the fruit of centuries of 
conflict with error. The history of this conflict 
can be studied in Browne's 39 Arts., pp. 21-34: 
Newman's Arians: Bull's Defence of the Nicene 
Faith: Petavhis, De Dogmatibus Tom. II. Pref. et 
lib. I. 

4. Four truths are involved in the doctrine of 
the Trinity, (a.) the Unity of essence (Q. 46): (b.) 
the threefold Subsistence (Q. 64-66): (c.) the Cir- 
cumcession (Q. 67): (d.) the Divine Monarchy 
(Q. 68). Newman's Tracts Theol. and Eccl., pp. 
160, 161. 

Question 61. 

What Biblical proof can be alleged for 
the doctrine of the Trinity? — Many adum- 
brations of this doctrine are contained in the Old 
Testament, and the New Testament reveals dis- 
tinctly the Divinity of the Three and Their 
Unity. Jones of Nay. on the Cath. Doc. of the 
Trinity. 



120 The Doctrine of God. 

old testament adumbrations. 

2. The Divine Name, Elohim, occurs many 
times in the plural number (e. g. Gen. I. 1) — 
With plural adjectives (Deut. IV. 7: Josh. XXIV. 
19)— With plural pronouns (Gen. I. 26: XI. 6, 7: 
Isa. VI. 8: espec. Gen. III. 2) — With plural verbs 
(Gen. XX. 13: XXXV. 7). 

3. Other names of God appear in the plural 
(Psa. LXXVIII. 25: Prov. IX. 10: Eccles. V. 8: 
XII. 1: Isa. LIV. 5: Dan. IV. 17, 26: V. 18, 20: 
Mai. I. 6). 

4. God is spoken of, and speaks of Himself, 
asmore than one Person (Gen. XIX. 24: Psa. CX. 
1: Prov. XXX. 4: Isa. X. 12: XIII. 13: XXII. 19: 
LXIV. 4: Dan. IX 17: Hos. I. 7: Zech. II. 10, 11: 
X. 12). 

5. Three Divine Persons seem to be implied 
(Num. VI. 24-26: Psa. XXXIII. 6: Isa. VI. 3. 
XXXIV. 16). • 

NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES. 

6. Matt. III. 16,17: XXVIII. 19 : John XIV. 
16, 17, 26: XV. 26: II. Cor. XIII. 14: Gal. IV. 6: 
II. Thess. III. 5: [I. John V. 7]. 



The Trinity. 121 



THESE THKEE ABE ONE. 

7. Each is the Creator, yet there is but One 
Creator (cf. Psa. XXXIII. 6 w. Isa. XLIV. 24) 
— Each is Jehovah (Deut. VI. 4: Jer. XXIII. 6: 
Ezek. VIII. 1, 3) — the Lord (Rom. X. 12: Luke 
II. 11: II. Cor. III. 18) —the God of Israel (Matt. 
XV. 31: Luke I. 16, 17: II. Sam. XXIII. 2, 3)— 
the Law-giver (Rom. VII. 25: Gal. VI. 2: Rom. 
VIII. 2: Jas. IV. 12)— omnipresent (Jer. XXIII. 
24: Ephes.I. 22: Psa. CXXXIX. 7,8)— the Source 
of life (Deut. XXX. 20: Col. III. 4: Rom. VIII. 
10) — made mankind (Psa. C. 3: John 1.3: Job. 
XXXIII. 4)— quickens the dead (John V. 21: 
ibid: VI. 33)— raised Christ (I. Cor. VI. 14: John 
II. 19: I. Pet. III. 18) — commissions the Ministry 
(II. Cor. III. 5, 6: I. Tim. I. 12: Acts V. 28)— 
sanctifies the elect (Jude 1: Heb. II. 11: Rom. 
XV. 16) — performs all spiritual operations (I. 
Cor. XII. 16: Col. III. 11: I. Cor. XII. 11). 

8. The Biblical proof of the Divinity of 
Christ and of the Holy Ghost will be given when 
~we come to Christology and Pneumatology. 

Question 62. 

What are the most important technical 
terms employed in connection with the doc- 



122 The Doctrine of God. 

trine or the Trinity ? — The most important 
technical terms employed in connection with the 
doctrine of the Trinity, are essence, nature, sub- 
stance, existence, subsistence, suppositum, person, 
procession, notion, relation, and property. Forbes' 
Nic. Creed, pp. 20, 21: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., 
Tr. VI. 6-47. 

2. Essence (essentia, ovaia) is that which 
constitutes a thing what it is. It is expressed by 
the definition of a thing. 

3. Nature (natura, <&v<ji$) is (a.) that which 
has its origin from another: (b.) the same as es- 
sence, but with an interior principle of action, i. 
e., the first principle and subject of all activity in 
a being. 

4. Substance (substantia) is (a.) the same as 
essence: (b.) that which underlies accidents: (c.) 
that which exists per se, and needs no subject in 
which to inhere. 

5. Existence (existentia) is essence in actual- 
ity as distinguished from potentiality. 

6. Subsistence (subsistentia) is that by which 
a single substance or substantial nature is con- 
stituted with its proper and independent mode of 
existence. 



The Trinity. 123 



7. Supposition is concrete subsistence, or a 
substantial nature constituted with a con-natural 
mode of existence. Any man, e. g. Peter, is a 
suppositum ; but the human soul by itself is not. 
Nor is the humanity of Christ, since its subsist- 
ence is not con-natural ; but it pertains to the 
suppositum of the Word Incarnate. 

8. Person (persona, vnoaraai^ is a ra- 
tional suppositum, being related to suppositum as 
species to genus: or, as defined by Boethius, Per- 
sona est animae rationalis individua substantia: 
or, according to Porter, " distinct subsistence, 
either actually or latently self-conscious and self 
determining." S. Thos. Sum. Th. } L 29: Lid- 
don's Barnp. Lee. p. 33, note d : Owen's Dog. Th., 
ch. 5. §5. 

9. Procession (processio) is the origin of one 
fiom another. 

10. Notion (notio) is that by which we can 
distinguish one person from another. 

11. Relation (relatio) is the order or status of 
one towards another. 

12. Property (proprietas) is the peculiar 
characteristic of a person. 



124 The Doctrine of God. 

Question 63. 

or what nature is the dlvine subsistence ? 
— The Divine subsistence is personal, inasmuch 
as God is a Being Who is self-conscious, intelli- 
gent and free. Strong's Syst. Th., pp. 56, 57, 
121 , 122, 160: Mulford's Rep. of God, pp. 23-26: 
Liddon's Some Elements, p. 35. 

2. We infer that God is personal because (a.) 
such a world as ours could not be caused by any 
other than an intelligent being: (b.) the existence 
of finite persons requires that their First Cause 
should be personal: (c.) the sense of responsibil- 
ity to the Supreme Being, and the religious 
instinct are otherwise meaningless: (d.) we can- 
not conceive of a being who is impersonal unless 
he is also inferior to ourselves. The supremacy 
and personality of God stand or fall together: (e.) 
the theory that God is impersonal involves all the 
moral difficulties of Pantheism (Q. 38. 4). 
ChristlieVs Mod. Doubt, pp. 161-190. 

3. The Pantheist objects, however, that an 
infinite being cannot be personal, for such a be- 
ing cannot be self-conscious except by distin- 
guishing ego from non-ego — i. e. His self-con- 
sciousness is conditioned by something external 



The Trinity. 125 



to Himself . In reply, it is to be said that (a.) 
we cannot argue from what is necessary for finite 
self-consciousness, to what is necessary for infinite 
self-consciousness: (b. ) if Divine self-conscious- 
ness is thus conditioned, the condition is satisfied 
within the Godhead, by virtue of the personal 
distinctions existing eternally within the Divine 
essence. Mulford: Strong, pp. 56, 57. 

Question 64. 

how do we know that there are three 
Persons in the Godhead? — We know there 
are three Persons in the Godhead through revela- 
tion only. But the contents of revelation in this 
matter can be shown to be in harmony with rea- 
son. Martensen's Dog., §§54, 55. 

2. Finite personality is conditioned by con- 
tra-position of ego and non-ego. This does not 
prove the necessity of such a contra-position in 
the Divine, but suggests the likelihood of it. 
Thus (a.) self-consciousness is attended by the 
distinction between ego and non-ego: (b.) love 
implies an object of love: (c.) all action implies 
the distinction between state and relation. Such 
conditions are not satisfied by creaturehood, for 
the Eternal requires an eternal contra-position, 



126 The Doctrine of God. 

and God is not dependent upon the creature for 
self-determination. S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 30: 
Schouppes El. Th. Dog., Tr. VI. §§82-88: Mar- 
tensen's Dog., §55. 

3. Reason, however, can neither discover the 
actual number of Persons subsisting in the God- 
head nor demonstrate that number after it has 
been revealed. Yet attempts have been made to 
construct a rationale of the Trinity which have a 
basis of truth, although they are more suggestive 
than final. 

4. There must be a principle of origin in the 
Godhead, in which all that is Divine inheres, and 
this principle is the Father, Who is called the un- 
originate source of the Godhead. But the Father 
contemplates, and requires an infinite object of 
contemplation reflective of Himself. His thought 
conceives that object, His Personal Word, in 
Whom He beholds His own Image. But there 
can be no schism or dualism in the Godhead. 
Love unites the Father and the Son, and the bond 
of love is a Person, the Holy Ghost, Who re- 
ceives the essence of Both by proceeding from 
Both. Kingdoms God Incarnate, pp. 11-14: 
Forbes' Nic. Creed, pp. 122-124: Mason's Faith of 
the Gospel, II. 6 : Martensen's Dog., §56. 



The Trinity. 127 



5. There is no logical contradiction between 
the phrases "One Divine Essence," and " Three 
Divine Persons, 17 for essence and person are not 
synonymous terms. Rickey's Truth and Counter 
Truth, p. 13. Furthermore, a distinction of Per- 
sons in God does not, as in the case of man, in- 
volve separation, or plurality of individuals. 
Strong, p. 160. God is one individual and solus. 
He is also a personal individual ; not because He 
is one Person, which He is not, but, because the 
manner of His subsistence is personal. See the 
famous passage Hooker, Ec. Pol, V. 51. 1: Lid- 
don's Bamp. Lee, pp. 438, 439: S. Thos. Sum. 
Th., L 30. 4. 

6. The term person as applied to the Divine, 
is inadequate, for it symbolizes that which trans- 
cends our experience and comprehension. But 
we must remember that it signifies more than a 
mere stage character, dramatis persona, if we are 
to avoid Sabellianism ; and not a separate individ- 
ual, if we are to avoid tri-theism. Strong, p. 160: 
Lidclon's Bamp. Lee, p. 33. For a history of the 
word, see Newmans Arians, ch. V. §1. 5., 

pp. 365 et seq: Forbes' Nic. Creed, pp. 83-87: 
Mason's Faith of the Gospel, II. 3, 4. 



128 The Doctrine of God. 

7. The personal distinctions in the Godhead 
are real and eternal; but they are internal, and 
consist with numerical unity of essence. The 
two truths, indivisible unity of essence and tri- 
personal subsistence, are to be held together ; and 
the manner of holding each should be such as to 
allow for the other. Rickey's Truth and Counter 
Truth, Introd. and pp. 14, 15: S. Thos. Sum. Th., 
I. 39. esp. art. 1. 

Question 65. 

What is the Catholic Faith concerning 
Divine Processions ? — The Catholic Faith con- 
cerning Divine Processions, is that the Son pro- 
ceeds from the Father by generation, and the 
Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son by spi- 
ration. Western forms of the Nicene and Athanas. 
Creeds: S. Thos. Sum,. Th., I. 27: Forbes' Nic. 
Creed, pp. 116-124: Pearson on the Creed, pp. 
238-244, 252, 253, 570-577: Owen's Dog. Th., 
ch. 5. §4: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. VI. §§135- 
150. 

2. These processions are (a.) immanent, 
since their objective termini are internal to their 
principle: (b.) substantial or subsistent, since 
they signify a changeless movement in the Divine 



The Trinity, 129 



essence itself — the mode of the Divine subsistence : 
(c.) necessary , for the Father cannot but gener- 
ate, and the Father and the Son cannot but spir- 
ate, since the personal subsistences themselves 
depend upon the Divine processions. Yet we 
may not speak of compulsion, for the necessity is 
internal. It is the nature of God to generate and 
spirate. S. Thos. Sum. Th. ; I. 41. 2, 5: (d.) 
eternal, for they have neither beginning nor end. 
They are ever going on, yet always completed. 
Forbes' Nic. Creed, pp. 120-122: Liddon's Bamp. 
Lee., p. 431: (e.) perfect, since they are without 
change of substance or diversity. The one es- 
sence is in each procession entirely communicated. 
Schouppe, §§139-144. 

3. Since these processions signify the mode 
of Divine subsistence and are immanent, eternal, 
and perfect, we may not speak of the Son as later 
in time than the Father, or inferior to Him, 
nor of the Holy Ghost as later than the Father 
and the Son, or inferior to Them. The whole Three 
Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. S. 
Thos. Sum. Th., I. 42. 1, 2. 

4. The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father 
and the Son, but in different manners and as 

9 



130 The Doctrine of God. 

from one principle. He proceeds from (£ #) the 
Father, through (Sia, 7tapd) the Son; for the 
Father alone is the unoriginate source of the God- 
head. The Son spirates the Holy Ghost because 
He is consubstantial with the Father, receiving 
His essence from the Father, and communicating 
it in and with the Father to the Holy Ghost. 
Forbes' Nic. Creed, pp. 256-262: S. Thos. Sum. 
Th. } I. 36. 2-4: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., VI. 
§§186-190: Pearson on the Creed, pp. 570-577. 
This is the doctrine of the ancients (including 
such Easterns as SS. Athanasius, Basil, Cyril 
Alex., and John Damas), and of all portions of the 
Church to-day ; although the Filioque controver- 
sy, originally one of law simply, has called forth 
statements from certain Eastern theologians 
which need charitable construction. In any case, 
we may not deny that there is an eternal proces- 
sion of the Holy Ghost from the Son. Puseifs 
Letter to Liddon: Bichey's Nic. Creed and the 
Filioque: Wilberforce on the H. Euch. 7 pp. 225 > 
226 and note. 

Question 66. 

What are the Divine Notions ? — The 
Divine Notions (notiones) ; by which the Persons 



The Trinity. 131 



are described and discriminated (Q. 62.10), are 
five ; viz. innascibility, paternity, filiation, spira- 
tion, and procession. S. Thos. Sunt. Th., I. 32. 
2-4: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., 161: Forbes" Nic. 
Creed , p. 124. 

2. Innascibility, paternity, and spiration per- 
tain to the Father, Who is unorginate, begets, 
and spirates. Filiation and spiration pertain to 
the Son, Who is begotten and spirates. Proces- 
sion pertains to the Holy Ghost, Who is spirated. 

3. All of these notions except innascibility 
are called Relations (relationes), because they 
express the manners according to which the 
Divine Persons subsist with reference to each other. 
Paternity and filiation express respectively the 
active and passive relations existing between the 
Father and the Son. Spiration and procession 
express respectively the active and passive rela- 
tions existing between the Father and the Son 
on the one hand and the Holy Ghost on the 
other. A further distinction should be made in 
spiration and procession, for the Holy Ghost 
does not proceed from the Son in the same man- 
ner in which He proceeds from the Father. 
Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. VI. 154-158: S. 
Thos. Stem. Th., I 28: Owen's Dog. Th., ch. 5. §6. 



132 The Doctrine of God. 

4. Three of these Relations are called Proper- 
Ti~E>s(pro2irietates); by which is meant the several 
characteristics which are peculiar to each, and by 
which each can be distinguished. They are Pa- 
ternity, filiation and procession. In other words 
we distinguish the Father as the unoriginate 
source of the Godhead; the Son as begotten; the 
Holy Ghost as proceeding. Schouppe's El. Th. 
Dog., Tr. VI. 159, 160: S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 40: 
Owm's Dog. Th., ch. 5. §8: Hooker's Ec. Pol, 
V. 51. 1. 

5. It may aid the memory to notice that 
there are one Divine Nature, two processions, 
three properties, four relations, and five notions. 
Schouppe, 162. 

Question 67. 

What is circumcesskw ? — Circumcession 
(circumcessio, circumincessio, commeatio, nepi- 
XGoprjGiS, 6V}i7Z£piXGopr)6iS) 7repieyxGopr/&iS) 
u is that property by which the Divine Persons, by 
reason of the identity of their natures communi- 
cate with each other. It is the internal existence 
of one Person in the other, without confusion of 
person or of personality " (S.John XIV. 9,11). 
Forbes' Nic. Creed, pp. 81-83: S. Thos. Sum. Th., 



The Trinity. 133 



I. 42. 5: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. VI. 163-165: 
Liddon's Damp. Lee, p. 34, note g : Owen's Dog. 
Th., ch. 5. §7. 

2. The Divine Persons mutually coinhere in 
action as well as in essence. Every Divine opera- 
tion proceeds equally from the Three. The rea- 
son why it is possible, none the less, to distin- 
guish, and to speak, for example, of the Father as 
Creator, of the Son as Redeemer, and of the Holy 
Ghost as Sanctifier, is that the distinction of Per- 
sons involves a diversity of relations between each 
Person and Their common operations. Wilber- 
force on the H. Euch., pp. 222-228: Hooker's Ec. 
Pol, I. 2.2. 

3. The doctrine of Circumcession is useful 
(a.) to guard the truth of the Divine Unity: (b.) to 
teach the moral harmony, or unity of purpose, 
which must attend Divine activity; — e. g. in the 
plan of Redemption: (c.) to refute the error that 
the economy of one Person displaces that of an- 
other in this world. Wilberforce pp. 227, 228: 

Question 68. 

What is the doctrine of Subordination ? 
— The doctrine of Subordination, also called the 
doctrine of the Divine Monarchy (jaovdpxia), 



134 The Doctrine of God. 

is that the manner of Divine subsistence requires 
us to speak of the Father as first in order, the Son 
as second, and the Holy Ghost as third. Bull's 
Defence of the Nic. Faith, Bk. IV: Newman's 
Tracts Theol. and Eccles., pp. 161, 167-191: 
Forbes' 39 Arts. I. p. 18 : Broivne's 39 Arts. II. p. 
67: S. Thos. Sum. Th,, I. 33: 42. 3: Schouppe's 
El. Th. Dog., Tr. VI. 174: Forbes' Nic. Creed, 
pp. 140-143: Liddon's Bamp. Lee, pp. 202, note 
I, 431, 432 note n, 447 : Pearson on the Creed, pp. 
64-67, 569,570: Oiven's Dog. Th., ch. 5. §11: 
Mason's Faith of the Gospel, II. 8. 

2. It is to be observed that (a.) this doctrine 
expresses a truth of the Divine essence. The order 
is not merely economic, but real and eternal: (b.) 
the order is one of origin and subsistence. The 
Father is first because the other Two proceed 
from Him, and He proceeds from none; the Son 
second because He is begotten; the Holy Ghost 
third because He proceeds from the other Two: 
(c.) No Person is " afore or after other." The 
order is logical, not chronological. The Three 
are u co-eternal together": (d.) There is no in- 
equality involved. "None is greater or less than 
another, but the whole Three Persons are . . . co- 
equal." 



The Trinity, 135 



3. The value of this doctrine is that it (a.) 
emphasizes the Divine Unity by teaching that 
there is but one principle o£ origin in the Trinity: 
(b.) guards the distinction of Persons by teach- 
ing the manner of Divine Unity. 



CHAPTER XL 

DIVINE ECONOMIES. 

Question 69. 

What is Mission ? — Mission, with reference 
to the Divine Persons, is the procession of one 
Person from another, having relation to some 
temporal effect. Forbes' 39 Arts., I. pp. 19-21: 
Nic. Creed, pp. 124, 125: S. Thos. Sum. Th., I. 
43: Schouppe's El. Th. Dog., Tr. VI. 166-173: 
Petav. Be Bog., VIII. 4-7. 

2. Two things are involved in Mission: (a.) 
He Who is sent proceeds from Him Who sends 
(John VIII. 42). S. Thos. I. 43. 8: (b.) the Per- 
son sent stands in some new relation to the ob- 
ject to which, terminus ad quern, He is sent: — 
not that the Person changes, but the economic 
relation. 

3. All the Divine Persons can come into the 
world (John XIV. 23). The Father does not pro- 
ceed and therefore is not sent. Pearson on the 



Divine Economies. 137 

Creed } p. 63. The Father and the Son send, for 
there is a procession from Both. The Son and 
the Holy Ghost are sent, because Both proceed. 
The Holy Ghost does not send, but is sent by the 
Father and the Son, since He proceeds from 
Both. 

4. The external effect of mission does not 
pertain to the whole Trinity except by way of 
efficiency. The relation of each Person to that 
effect is different, and the difference is such that 
we attribute the action to one Person. For ex- 
ample, it is the Son, not the Father or the Holy 
Ghost, Who became Incarnate. Hooker's Ec. 
Pol., I. 2. 2: Schouppe, §168. 

Question 70. 

What is meant by the Divine economies ? 
— The Divine economies signify the particular 
external operations which revelation teaches us 
to attribute to the several Divine Persons. Thus 
the economy of the Father is creation of the 
world: of the Son, redemption of mankind; of 
the Holy Ghost, sanctification of the elect people 
of God. Church Catechism: Schouppe's El. Th. 
Dog., Tr. VI. §§201,202: Martensen's Dog., p. 
106. 



138 The Doctrine of God. 

2. The term economy, owovOjiia, was 
used in sub-apostolic days to signify ( a. ) a dis- 
pensation or plan of God's government; in which 
sense it was especially applied to the Incarnation 
(cf. Ephes. I. 10): (b.) the method of reserve dis- 
cernible in Divine revelation, adapted to meet the 
necessities of the slow understandings of men by 
progressive enlightenment. Light/oofs Apos. 
F'rs. Ft. II. , Vol. II. , p. 75. 

3. In later theology the word has had the 
following uses: (a.) the progressive method of 
Divine revelation: (b.) the special work and reve- 
lation of each Divine Person (so used in this 
question): (c.) certain successive dispensations or 
covenants in the history of God's chosen people; 
e. g. the Mosaic economy: (d.) the "disciplina 
arcani," or guarded instruction of Catechumens 
in the ancient Church. Newman's Avians, pp. 
49-89. 

4. A doctrine is called economic to signify 
that the truth to which it refers has not been fully 
revealed, because of the limitations of our under- 
standings. The revelation is true economically, i. 
-e. so far as it goes; but it is partial. A doctrine 



Divine Economies. 139 

of this sort is also called a mystery, ^vatrjpwy^ 
because it is inscrutable. 

5. The greater part of Dogmatics is con- 
cerned with the economies of the Divine Persons. 
The economy of the Father is treated of in Cos- 
mology, Angelology, and Anthropology; that of 
the Son in Christology; that of the Holy Ghost 
in Pneumatology and Ecclesiology; the consum- 
mation of them all in Eschatology. 



CORRIGENDA. 



Page 14 bottom: Bushnell's instead of Bushrell's. 
22, line 6: premises 



'' 22, " 6: praeambula 

' 24, " 3: exegetical 

' 31, " 14: depositum 

1 58, " 13: probable 

' 63, " 9: corroborate 

; 63, " 19: corroborates 

1 71, top: Chapter VI 

1 76, line 21: Deity 

1 81, " 1: ascribing 

1 118, " 8: uncreate 



premesis. 

praeambulae. 

exegtical. 

despositum. 

propable. 

corroberate. 

corroberates. 

Chapter V. 

Diety. 

ascribed. 

Incarnate. 



SUBJECT INDEX 



Absolute will of God, . . . . 51.5 

Acosmism, . . . . . 38.2b 

Action of God twofold, .... 50.4,5 

Agnosticism, . . . . . .35 

Antecedent will of God, . . . . 51.4 

Anthropomorphism, .... 41.2,3 

Anti-Theistic Theories, . . . Chap. VI 

Apodeictic Certainty, . . . .19.2 

Apologetics, . . . . . 8.3 

A posteriori, . . . . . 23.2-4 

A priori, ..... 23.2-4 

Atheism, ...... 22.4:34 

Atheists, ..... 22.1.2:34.2 

Attributes of God, .... 43:47.5 

Authority of Cath. dogma, . . . .9.2.3 

Do. the Church, . . . 6.2.3:10 

Benevolence of God, . . . .55.5.6 

Bible, 14 

Bible and the Church, .... 14.6 

Blessedness of God, . . . . .59 

Cartesian Arg., ..... 25 

Catholic Faith. .... 6.5:9.3.4:11 

Causality, arg. from . . . . .26 



142 The Doctrine of God. 



Certainty, .... 


. 19.2-5 


Chance, doctrine of , . 


27.5 


Church and Bible, 


14.6 


Circumcession, 


60.4:67 


Coequality of Div. Persons, 


65.3 


Common Consent, 


22 


Communicative goodness of God, 


55 


Conditional will of God, 


. 51.5 


Conscience, . 


29.3 


Consequent will of God, 


. 51.4 


Cosmological arg., ' 


26:31.3 


Creation denied, 


. 38.2d 


Do moving cause of 


56.3 


Creeds, .... 


6.3-5 


Cumulative force of Theistic proof, 


. 30 


Definition of Trinitarian terms, 


62 


Deism, .... 


33.1,2 


Demonstration, 


19.1,2 


Do of God's existence imposs., 


20 


Design argument, 


27:31.4 


Development of doctrine, 


13 


Divine economies . Chap. XI 


:Q. 67.2,3c:69.4:70 


Divine element in H. S., 


15.1,2.5 


Divine Nature and attributes, 


Chap. VII, VIII. 


Doctrinal theory of Inspiration, 


16.3 


Dogma, . 


. 9 


Dogmatic office of the Church Chap. 


II: Q., 9.2,3:10.4,5 


Dogmatic Theology, 


7.3:8 


Dogmatism, .... 


33.1,4 


Dubia, .... 


. 12.3,4 


Dynamic theory of Inspiration, 


. 16.5 



Subject Index. 143 

Economic truth, . . . . 70.4 

Economies, Divine . . . 67.2,3c :69.4:70 

Economy defined, .... 70.2,3 

Elements in H. S., . . . . . 15 

Epicurus' materialism, . . . 36.2 

Essence, ...... 62.2 

Essentials of faith, . . . . .12 

Eternity of God, ..... 49 

Evil, problem of . . . . .28.4 

Do said to be good . . . 38. 2g 

Evolutionary theory not anti-theistic, . 27.6:28.2,3 

Exegetical Theology, . . . . 7.4 

Existence, ...... 62.5 

Existence of God not demonstrable, . . .20 

Do provable morally, . . . 21 

Explicit and implicit faith, . . . 9.4:13.3 

Faculties employed in theology, ... 5 

Faith, . . . . 5.3-7 

Do rule of .... 9.3,4:11 

Do unity of in the Church,' . . . 5.7 

Faithfulness of God, . . . . 57.7 

Father, the . . 64.4:66.2-4:67.2:68.1,2:69.3:70.1,5 

Fatherhood of God, .... 42.5 

Filiation ..... 66.1-4 

Filioque controversy, . . . . 65.4 

Fore-knowledge of God, . . . .49.4 

Form, God pure F. . . . . 47.4 

Free thought, .... 6.4:10.5 

Goodness, (communicative) of God, . . .55 

Good pleasure, will of 51.1,3-5 

Grace, ...... 32.1:56.5 



144 The Doctrine of God. 



Hatred of God, 


56.3 


Heresy, 


. 13.6 


Historical argument, 


. 28:31.5 


Historical Theology, 


7.2 


Holiness of God, 


.57 


Holy Ghost, . 64.4:65.4:66.2-4:67.2:68.1,2:69.3:70.1,5 


Holy Ghost, procession of 


65.4 


Holy Scripture 


. Chap. III. 


Human element in H. S. 


15.1,3,5 


Hypostasis, 


62.8:64.5-7 


Idea of God, how formed 


41 


Immanence of God, 


48.2 


Immensity of God, 


48 


Immutability of God, 


49.6 


Implicit and explicit faith, 


9.4:13.3 

gj 


Incomprehensibility of God, 


35.4:40:54.3 


Infinite, 


39 


Innascibility, 


66.1,2 


Inspiration, 


. 14.3:16 


Do how attested 


. 14.3 


Do and revelation, 


. 17 


Inspirer, the 


17 


Interpretation of H. 8. 


6.2:17.6 


Judgments of God, 


58.4 


Justice Do 


58 


Knowledge of God, our 


. 20.3:40:41:43.2,5 


Law, 


4 


Liberal Christianity, 


33.5 


Living God, 


44.5:47.3 


Love of Gocl, . 


56 


Materialism, 


3 6 



Subject Index. 145 

Mathematical Certainty, . . . .19.2 

Mercy of God, ..... 56.4 

Merits of men, . . . . .58.3 

Metaphors in H. S., .... 41.3 

Miracles, .... . 3:4.3 

Mission, ...... 69 

Monarchy, Divine, .... 60.4:68 

Moral argument, .... 29:31.6 

Moral attributes of God, Chap. IX. 

Moral certainty, . . . . . 19.3 

Moral perfection of God, . ; . .54 

Moral proof, 19.1,3-5 

Moral Theology, .... 7.3:13.4 

Mystery, defined .... 40.7 

Names of God, ..... 42 

Natural, .... 2.1,2:3.4:32.4,5 

Natural law, . . . . . .4 

Naturalism, . . . . . 33.1, 3 

Nature, 62.3 

Neologian theory of Insp. . . . 16.4 

Non-essentials of faith, . . . 12. 2 4 

Notions, 62.10:66 

Omnipotence of God, .... 50 

Omniscience of God, . . . .52 

Ontological argument, . . . . .24 

Onus probandi in Theism, .... 22.4 

Pantheism, . . . . .38: 63.3^ 

Paternity, ...... 66.1-4 

Perfection of God, . . . . .45 

Person, 62.8:64.6 

Personality of God, .... 63:64.5 



146 The Doctrine of God. 



Phenomena not all material, 


37.3 


Pious opinions, 


. 12 3,4:13.6 


Pity, grief and anger of God, 


59.3 


Plenary inspiration, . 


14.5: 16.6 


Plural personality of God, 


64.2 


Point of view of H . S . , 


. 14.4 


Polemics, .... 


. 8.3 


Positive Dogmatics, 


8.3 


Positivism, .... 


. 37 


Praeambula fidei, 


6.3 


Prayer, .... 


53.5 


Predestination of God, 


49.5 


Presence of God, 


52.46 


Probable proof, 


. 19.1,3-5 


Probation, conditions of 


. 4.6 


Probation of faith, 


20 4 


Procession, . 


62.9: 65: 66.1-4 


Proofs of God's existence, . 22: 24: 


25: 26: 27: 28: 29 


Do Do, cumulative 


. 30 


Do Do, moral effect of 


30.3 


Do Do, teaching of 


31 


Do Do, value of 


. 225 


Proof of revealed truth, 


14 6: 17.5 


Properties, .... 


. 6212:66.4 


Providence, 


. 53.2-6 


Purpose of H. S. 


14.4: 5.2 


Rationalism, . 


. . 33 


Reason in religion, 


. 52:195:33.6 


Relations, . . 


62.11: 66.3 


Religion universal, 


29.4: 31.7 


Religious certainty, 


19.5 



Subject Index, 147 



Revealer, the 


. 17 3 


Revelation, 


Chap. V:Q.32 


Revelation of God in H. S. . 


. 42.7 


Revelation and inspiration, 


17 


Revelation progressive, 


. 17.5 


Righteousness of God, 


. 57.3: 58.2 


Rule of faith, 


9. 3, 4: 11 


Sacramental law moral, 


4.5 


Sacred Scriptures, . 


14 


Science, 


1.2 


Science of Theology, 


Chap.I. 


Self-existence of God, . 


44 


Self-sufficiency of God, 


45.4 


Signs, will of the 


. 51.1, 3, 6 


Simplicity of God, 


47 


Son, the . 64.4: 66.2-4: 67.2: 


68.1, 2: 69.3, 4: 70.1, 5 


Source of revealed truth, 


14.6 


Sources of theological data, 


6: 32.4, 5 


Sovereignty of God, 


50.1, 3: 53.4 


Space, .... 


48.3 


Spencer's Agnosticism, 


35.2 


Spiration, 


. 66.1-3 


Spiritual essence of God, 


47.2, 3 


Subordination, 


60.4: 68 


Subsistence, 


. 62.6:63:68 


Substance, 


62.4 


Summum bonum, 


45.5 


Supernatural, 


. 2: 3.4 


Suppositum, 


62.7 


Systematic Theology, 


7.3 


Teaching of Theism, 


. 31 



148 The Doctrine of God. 



Teleological argument, 


27: 31.4 


Terms denned, Trinitarian, 


62 


Testimony of the Church, 


6.3: 10.6 


Theism, 


Chap. IV. 


Theology, 


1.4.4,5:7 


Theology Proper, 


18 


Time, 


49. 3-5 


Transcendence of God, 


48.2 


Trinity, 


Chap. X. 


Do stated, 


42.6: 60 


Do history of the doctrine, . 


60.3 


Do Biblical proof of 


61 


Do Rationale of 


. 64. 3, 4 


Do not contradictory, 


. 64.5 


Tri-personal subsistence of God, 


60.4: 61.2-6. 64: 65. 2 b 


Truth of God, . 


57.4 



Uniformity of nature and of the supernatural, . 4.2-6 
Unity of the Bible, . . . . 14.2 

Unity of faith in the Church, ... 5.7 

Unity of God, . . 46: 60.4a: 61.7: 67: 68.3a 

Unity, moral, of Divine operations, . 67.3b 

Universe began to be, . . . . 26.5 

Verbal theory of Insp., . . . .16.2 

Will of God, 51 

Wisdom of God, . . . . .53 

Word of God, H. S. the . . . 14.5 

Worship, of the faithful .... 59.4 



0r 



■ 







■ 









v^*¥ 




Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



